When it comes to reading (and interpreting ) the Gospels, one of the fundamental questions pertains to the kind of document we are reading. What exactly is a “Gospel”? And did the earliest readers of these books know what they were reading?

Such questions may seem pedantic to the average reader, but they matter more than we think. Right interpretation is built on (among other things) correctly assessing the literary genre. We don’t read parables like historical narrative, nor do we read poetry (Psalms) like apocalyptic literature.

An example of confusion over “genre” in our modern world (though in a different medium) pertains to the growing practice of making internet ads look like internet content. In other words, some companies are positioning their ads to look like a news story.

This is quite controversial for an obvious reason: people read and interpret ads differently than news. People expect one thing from ads, and expect something very different from news. One is viewed as propaganda, the other is viewed as fact (though that distinction itself is subject to dispute today). [Read more…]

Currently, I am about 3/4 of the way through Ehrman’s volume and plan to review it formally in a few months. In the meantime, I have to say I am very encouraged by what I’ve been reading. I think Ehrman is spot-on in his analysis of much about Christianity in the early centuries. Indeed, our conclusions are very similar in a number of places.

When it comes to reaching the “lost,” one of the most tried-and-true methods is the personal conversion story. Whether done privately or publicly, it’s compelling to hear a person’s testimony about how they came to believe in the truth of the Gospel, the truth of the Bible, and embraced the Christian faith. Such testimonies can personalize and soften the message so it is more easily understood and received.

But when it comes to reaching the “found,” there’s an equally effective method—and this is a method to which the evangelical church has paid very little attention. It’s what we might call the de-conversion story.

De-conversion stories are designed not to reach non-Christians but to reach Christians. And their purpose is to convince them that their outdated, naïve beliefs are no longer worthy of their assent. Whether done privately or publicly, this is when a person simply gives their testimony of how they once thought like you did and have now seen the light. [Read more…]

A number of years ago, Albert Sundberg wrote a well-known article arguing that the early church fathers did not see inspiration as something that was uniquely true of canonical books.[1] Why? Because, according to Sundberg, the early Church Fathers saw their own writings as inspired. Ever since Sundberg, a number of scholars have repeated this claim, insisting that the early fathers saw nothing distinctive about the NT writings as compared to writings being produced in their own time period.

Just recently, Lee McDonald has repeated this claim numerous times in his latest volume, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, vol. 2 (T&T Clark, 2017), particularly as he responds to my own work. To be sure, McDonald has done some great work on canon, and I appreciate much in this new volume. But, I have to disagree with him on this point.

Of course, now is not the time for a full-scale response. But we can (briefly) observe several factors that speak against this idea that the church fathers saw their own writings as on par with the apostles. [Read more…]

When it comes to the truth of the Bible, our world has found plenty of reasons to reject it. We are bombarded with a dizzying variety of objections. So much so, that the average believer is quickly overwhelmed.

It’s a bit like being in a fight with multiple opponents at the same time. You might have a chance in a one-on-one contest, but it is disorientating when punches are coming from all sides. You can’t block them all.

One helpful way to address this problem is to learn how to separate these varied objections into distinct categories. This simple step allows us to organize our thinking. This helps us get a clearer picture of what particular opponent we are dealing with.

So, here are the three categories of Bible objections. Indeed, I might argue that just about any objection falls into one of these three categories. Our purpose here is not to answer the objections but just to explain them. [Read more…]

A phrase like this would not have been unusual among Romans in the first couple of centuries. In the eyes of the average citizen, Christians were an odd bunch. And what made them odd was not just what they believed. It was how (and who) they worshiped.

To be sure, worship was a big deal in the ancient world. The ancient Greco-Roman culture was very religious. Even more to the point, they were publicly religious. Worship rituals and activities were visible for all to see.

And it was precisely here that this “Christianity thing” was found to be strange and unusual. Indeed, Christian worship seemed to hack off just about everybody. Here’s why: [Read more…]

It is well known by now that one of RTS Charlotte’s newest faculty members is Kevin DeYoung. He is the new Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology and will be teaching three classes a year for us here.

In addition, Kevin is the Senior Pastor of Christ Covenant Church here in Charlotte, chairman of the board for The Gospel Coalition, author of numerous books, a popular blogger, in-demand speaker, and more.

Since his appointment, people have been asking about the backstory to Kevin’s transition. How did it all happen? And what is Kevin’s vision for his new role?

Well, the videos below answer those questions. The first is a round table discussion between Kevin, Ligon Duncan, and myself. And the other videos are Kevin himself explaining what he hopes to see happen in his transition to Charlotte. Enjoy! [Read more…]

Over the recent holiday break I found myself in the movie theater to watch The Last Jedi. Given how profoundly disappointing and unimaginative the movie was (something I may explore in another post), I left the theater thinking about an entirely different movie.

In fact, I began to think of this other movie before The Last Jedi even started. One of the movie trailers at the beginning was from Steven Spielberg’s forthcoming Ready Player One. And it looked genuinely innovative and culturally fascinating.

During the many moments of boredom during the main attraction, I began to reflect upon what this new movie says about the world we live in (or, for some, the world we pretend to not live in).

Based upon the 2011 book of the same name by Ernest Cline, the film is a futuristic dystopian drama set in 2045. An energy crisis has destroyed the world, creating a miserable existence for millions.

In order to escape the world they live in, people have turned to a virtual reality world fittingly named OASIS. In this world they can take on new identities (AVATARS) and live a life of fulfillment, excitement, and pleasure.

The protagonist, Wade Watts, lives almost his entire life in the virtual world–even going to school in simulation. His relationships and his identity are all bound up with his online existence. In the film, he is drawn into a life or death competition to find an “easter egg” hidden in the OASIS worth billions. [Read more…]

Dr. Welch is also doing an EQUIP seminar on Monday, Jan 30, 6-8PM, here on the Charlotte campus. This is an evening designed for training lay leaders in the Charlotte area. More details on the seminar can be found here. For past installments of the EQUIP series, see here.

For my American colleagues and friends however, this book has not been easy to get. Since it is a dual publication between SPCK and IVP Academic, and since it was released by SPCK first, it has thus far only been (technically) available if ordered from the UK.

I am pleased to say that its US release is almost here. IVP Academic plans to release it March 6th (see here).

And I have to say I love the new cover (see inset picture). I also thought the SPCK cover was great, so I am blessed that I like both of them (which is not always true for authors).

In addition, the volume has a new description, and a new set of endorsements: [Read more…]

In this last video, we tackle the very important issue of textual transmission. Skeptics have argued that the wild theological diversity in early Christianity would not only have led the church to have different canons, but it would also have led the church to have different texts.

Scribes, influenced by their theological climate, would have been quite ready and willing, we are told, to change the text for doctrinal reasons. This thesis is laid out fully in Bart Ehrman’s, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (OUP, 2011).

But, is the wording of the NT really lost? Have the original words been changed and corrupted beyond recovery? And were early Christian scribes really as amateurish as claimed?

Over the years (and even this year) I’ve heard a number of talks on the five solas. And I have to say that the four talks given by my colleagues are some of the best I’ve ever heard. They were insightful, profound, enlightening, convicting and encouraging.

The good news is that we have these talks on video. Feel free to skip over mine and get onto the good ones! Here they are: [Read more…]

The first week was an overview of Bauer and why we wrote the book (see here), and the second week was on the role of diversity in the NT books themselves (see here).

In this video below, we discuss an area very central to the Bauer thesis, namely the development of the NT canon. Bauer argues that we have no reason to think the books in our NT are the “right” books because they are simply the books chosen by the theological winners. And the winners get to determine the scope of the canon.

After all, argues Bauer, what if another early Christian group had prevailed? What if the Gnostics had won? Then we might have the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip in our Bibles instead of, say, Matthew and John.

This sort of narrative about the origins of the canon has been repeated countless times over the years, in both popular and academic literature. But it runs into a significant problem: [Read more…]

In 1934, the German scholar Walter Bauer wrote a landmark work entitled Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. The problem was that no one yet knew it was a landmark work. The Germans (and the world) had other things on their mind during this phase of European history.

But, in 1971 the book was translated into English. And with all the new found (largely American) fascination with apocryphal Gospels like the Gospel of Thomas, the English translation proved to be well timed.

Bauer’s core thesis was that early Christianity was profoundly diverse in terms of its theological commitments. Various Christian groups believed all sorts of contradictory things about Jesus, salvation, creation and a myriad of other Christian doctrines. [Read more…]

Well, Oct 31st, 2017 is finally here. All year long, churches and organizations around the world have (rightly) been celebrating this amazing thing we call the Protestant Reformation.

One of the foundational convictions of the Reformers was, of course, this doctrine we call Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). Simply put, this is the belief that the Scriptures are the highest and most ultimate authority in the life of the Christian.

Contrary to popular misunderstandings, it is not the belief that the Scriptures are the only authority. Christians have other legitimate authorities in their life (their elders, classical creeds, etc.), but only Scripture is an infallible authority. For more on this point, see here.

At the heart of Sola Scriptura, is the recognition that fallen humans have a problem with authority. Indeed, fallen humans are always looking to replace God’s authority with some other human/creaturely authority. After all, that was the essence of the very first sin in the garden. The rebellion of Adam and Eve was fundamentally a rejection of God’s word that if they ate of the fruit they would surely die.

Ever since, humans have been remarkably inventive in the variety of authorities they erect in place of God. Sola Scriptura is designed simply to prevent these other authorities from ruling the Christian and to keep God’s Word rightly as our ultimate guide. Here are three examples of such authorities: [Read more…]

There’s a lot of protesting going on in our culture today. Seems like everyone is upset about something. And they are quite willing to let the world know about it. Indeed, even in the evangelical Christian world, it seems like protesting has become the thing to do.

The key question, however, will always be, “Against what things should Christians offer a protest?”

I suppose there are many answers to that question. But, as we near the 500th anniversary of Luther’s nailing of the 95 theses to the Wittenberg door (Oct 31st), we should at least consider what the Reformers were busy protesting.

After all, that is what the Reformers were. The term “Protestant,” of course, comes from the Latin protestari, which simply means to “declare publicly, testify, protest.” And if you are a Protestant today, then you still are, effectively, a protestor. [Read more…]

When it comes to my books, this is one of the most common questions I get. I have answered it so many times over the last few years, that I thought it might make a useful blog post.

While both these volumes are about the origins of the NT Canon, they are primarily distinguished by the fact that they are answering different questions. Canon Revisited is answering questions like, “How do we know if we have the right 27 books?” or “Why these books and no others?” [Read more…]

I appreciate Meade’s interaction with my material. In some ways, our conversation is making progress. But in other ways, unfortunately, it is not. Let me offer some reflections on his latest post.

Understanding the Argument from the Codex

In my initial response to Meade, I argued that he has misunderstood the argument I (and others) are making about the codex. The argument is not that the codex book format can provide exact boundaries of the canon. Nor is the argument that any book that appears in a codex is automatically canon.

Thus, simply pointing out that non-canonical books appear in a codex format is not a valid counter-argument. Meade keeps making this counter-argument and that is why I suggested he is taking an “all-or-nothing” approach to the codex. He acts as if one exception makes the codex irrelevant for canon.

In his latest post, Meade defends himself against this “all-or-nothing” approach, but I confess I do not understand his defense. [Read more…]

Over at Evangelical Textual Criticism, John Meade has posted an article reviewing chapter seven of my book, Canon Revisited. In particular, he challenges a number of the arguments I use to show how NT manuscripts may illumine our understanding of the development of the NT canon.

Meade focuses his comments on two issues, namely the number of manuscripts and the use of the codex. Before offering a response to those issues below, let me begin by making a simple observation about the purpose of this chapter. If one understands the flow of the argument in the book, and sets chapter seven in the larger context of the prior chapters, it will become clear that the exploration of these manuscripts is not intended to provide a definitive answer to which books are in the canon. Nowhere do I argue that we know which books are in the canon simply be looking at the features of early Christian manuscripts.

Indeed, the prior six chapters are making a very different argument about how we know which books are in and which books are out (an argument I will not rehearse here). The discussion of manuscripts, then, is provided simply as something that further illumines the history of the canon. It provides a general (but not absolute) confirmation of what we see from other kinds of evidence (patristic and otherwise). [Read more…]

Some critical scholars would say no. Jesus, they would argue, is just presented as an ordinary man who has been given an exceptional role as God’s chief emissary and representative. He is messiah perhaps. But not God.

Of course, Christians (historically speaking) have disagreed. Yes, Jesus is Messiah, but he also shares in the divine identity and is rightly accorded all the glory and honor due to God.

When it comes to demonstrating the divine status of Jesus from Scripture, the “go to” passages are not difficult to list: John 1:1; John 8:58; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:1-11. These are the places we most commonly turn in debates and discussions.

But, there is a passage often overlooked in such discussions that lays out the divine status of Jesus as plainly as any of these (if not more so). [Read more…]

One of my favorite things about books is not just reading them but holding them. Especially old books. I love the feel of a book in my hand that many people have read before me. There’s that musty bookish smell when you flip through the pages. There’s the worn out covers and notes in the margins.

When you read a book like this you feel like you are walking a well-worn path that many others have trod before.

And it is precisely this sort of experience that is absent with the arrival of modern e-book technology. Whether we are reading on a Kindle reader or off our tablets (or smartphones), the book has ceased to be a physical object and has become a nebulous, bodiless text.

To be clear, I am not saying this new technology is wrong. But I am saying there is something missing with it. Especially when it comes to the Bible. We forget that the Bible was a physical object. It is an artifact with a physical/archaeological history.

And when we remember the physical history of the Bible–particularly through the manuscripts left behind–we can learn much about its origins and how it was put together. These manuscripts can be a “window” into the development of the biblical canon.

It is theme that will be the focus of my upcoming lecture, [Read more…]

As many of you know, from 2014 to 2016 I led a women’s Bible study on the RTS Charlotte campus on the book of Romans–42 installments in all. The HD videos of the study (with handouts) are available here.

We continue to be encouraged to hear that the videos are being watched by folks all over the country and the world. Just a short time ago, I received an email from a group in Slovakia that is working their way through the Romans study.

The idea for this study was born out of a desire to connect with the people in the city of Charlotte outside the formal classroom setting. A lot of people are too intimidated to take one of the standard seminary classes, but I thought they may be willing to come on campus an participate in “normal” Bible Study.

After taking a year off from Romans, this past week we launched the women’s Bible study again. We are so excited to have 165 women register.

This time we are in the book of Hebrews which is a magnificent book in its own right. As is well known, the theme of the book is the supremacy of Christ over all things. The audience is likely a Jewish-Christian community thinking about turning back to the old ways of Judaism.

So the author spends his time showing that Jesus is superior to the prophets, the angels, to Moses, to Joshua, to Aaron and more.

Although modern American audiences may not be thinking about a return to animal sacrifices in the Temple, the book certainly applies to anything we substitute for Christ in our lives. In short, it reminds us that “Jesus is Better.”

For details on the Bible study, see here. For the introductory video, along with the video of the first session, see below: [Read more…]

Last week, I posted the first of a two-part response to a recent Pew study which claimed that modern Protestants sound more like Catholics when it comes to issues like sola scriptura and sola fide.

While modern Protestants certainly have some significant theological weak spots, I pushed back against the results of this study on the grounds that the questions being asked were fundamentally misleading. Indeed, the theological descriptions of the Protestant (and Catholic!) positions were flat out wrong.

Having already dealt with the sola scriptura issue in the prior post, we now turn to the issue of sola fide. Here is the summary of the Pew survey about the way Protestants view that issue: [Read more…]

Mark Twain once quipped, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Ah statistics. They can be very helpful. Or very misleading. And much of it depends on how the questions are asked.

Last week it was announced that a new Pew foundation study demonstrated that modern Protestants are a lot less like Martin Luther and a lot more like Roman Catholics than people might think.

When it comes to the two main issues of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone) apparently Protestants aren’t so Protestant after all. The study conclusions state:

For example, nearly half of U.S. Protestants today (46%) say faith alone is needed to attain salvation (a belief held by Protestant reformers in the 16th century, known in Latin as sola fide). But about half (52%) say both good deeds and faith are needed to get into heaven, a historically Catholic belief.

U.S. Protestants also are split on another issue that played a key role in the Reformation: 46% say the Bible is the sole source of religious authority for Christians – a traditionally Protestant belief known as sola scriptura. Meanwhile, 52% say Christians should look both to the Bible and to the church’s official teachings and tradition for guidance, the position held by the Catholic Church during the time of the Reformation and today.

When these two questions are combined, the survey shows that just three-in-ten U.S. Protestants believe in both sola fide and sola scriptura.

These stats, if true, would certainly be stunning. Indeed, even depressing. And given the low-level of theological knowledge among most self-identified evangelicals, we might easily believe these stats are right on the mark.

This past Summer, I completed the ten-part series, “Taking Back Christianese.” Below is the complete and final list of articles.

The motivation for this series was that our Christian lingo–“Christianese” if you will–can sometimes be mistaken. Or at least partially so. It can attempt to express a theological truth that (sometimes) bring more confusion than clarity.

So, this series addresses the way we talk as Christians. It is designed to analyze a number of theological phrases or practical bits of Christians wisdom that may simply be wrong, or at least misunderstood. Or maybe both.

As a reminder, I am not be suggesting that the instances of Christianese below are necessarily wrong. Taken properly, they may be right in many ways. But, of course, that is precisely the issue. Often they are not taken properly. Instead they can be used to justify some questionable theological views.

So, the goal of the series–and this is important to get–was not to refute these phrases but to clarify, to nuance, and to balance out these phrases. In the world of theology, lack of nuance is one step (often a big step) towards doctrinal error.

Let me also say that the list below is by no means exhaustive. Nor is the list below intended to represent the worst or most inaccurate ways we speak as Christians. On the contrary, I (and all of us) have heard much worse!

Note: I post the article below every year as seminary students arrive. I hope it will prove helpful for a new group of readers (or maybe even prior ones!)

A few weeks ago, a new crop of seminary students began the grueling month-long experience of Summer Greek. And, like all seminary students before them, they will begin to ask the question of why studying these ancient languages even matters. After all, a few years after graduation all will be forgotten. In the midst of a busy pastoral life, who could possibly maintain proficiency in the languages?

As a result of these questions, some students decide (very early on) that the biblical languages are just something to be endured. They are like a hazing ritual at a college fraternity. No one likes it, but you have to go through it to be in the club. And then it will be over.

Behind this “take your medicine” approach to the biblical languages are a couple of assumptions that need to be challenged. First, the characterization of pastoral ministry as somehow incompatible with the languages (due to busyness, or other causes), is an unfortunate misunderstanding of what a pastorate is all about. No doubt, pastors should be busy shepherding their flock, meeting with ministry leaders, and running the church. But, the core of the calling is to be a “minister of the word.”

And if the pastoral call is to be a minister of the Word, then there is a significant component of pastoral life that should be devoted to serious study of the biblical text—beyond just the preparation for that week’s sermon. Put differently, pastors should continue to be students. They need to be readers, thinkers, and theologians.

Since it has been released, folks have been asking how this book connects to the modern church. In other words, can we learn anything from the Christians of the second century that may help us in our current cultural moment? Absolutely. Here are a few lessons to consider. [Read more…]

I have argued in numerous places–articles, blog posts, books–that Scripture played a central role in the life of early Christians. They not only read and preached from these books, but they copied and distributed them in great numbers.

An additional (and rather curious) example of the role of Scripture in early Christianity was the phenomenon of the miniature codex. From the time of the third century, and especially in the fourth and fifth centuries, Christians began to create these little “pocket Bibles” that contained portions of Scripture and sometimes even held multiple scriptural books (e.g., see my analysis of P.Ant. 12).

The early Christians probably used the miniature codex format for a number of reasons including private reading, portability for long journeys, and sometimes even in a “magical” sense (thinking it provided protection for the one who possessed it).

But, it seems they also used these books as a visible sign of their Christian identity. Christians would carry these books on their bodies, often hung around their necks, as a sign that they were devoted to Scripture and thereby devoted to Christ.

Aside from the miniature codex in particular, we know Christians often treated scriptural books in just such a fashion. [Read more…]

For those reading this blog, I trust you’ve benefited from the variety of posts that deal with issues related to the origins of the NT canon. I have written those posts with a wide audience in mind, hoping they are helpful for just about anybody who wants to learn more.

At the same time, I know some of you may be interested to know of some more academic articles I have written over the last few years that deal with the NT canon, or NT manuscripts, on a more technical level. Those kinds of articles, because they are not “blog” articles, tend to get lost in the shuffle. And even if a person knows about them, sometimes they are very hard to find!

But, here are a few examples over the last five years (starting with most recent) along with a few comments from me about what the article is about: [Read more…]

I am excited to announce that it is now available! (technically July 20th). Since the book is a joint publication between SPCK and IVP Academic, it releases in the UK now (under SPCK) and then will release in the USA in the Spring (under IVP Academic).

Not sure why there is such a big gap of time between the two releases, but there you have it. Of course, you can still order from the USA Amazon here, and I am sure it will be available in the States through a variety of other channels.

There’s been a lot of chatter about “fake news” in recent months. Some stories, even though they have no basis in fact, are told so often, and with such conviction, that large numbers of people end up believing them anyway.

And some of these fake news stories even dupe legitimate political figures who repeat the story without realizing it is false. And, of course, once a mainstream political figure repeats a story then it becomes even more entrenched in the national psyche.

While some of these fake news stories are rather harmless, others have become quite dangerous. Most famous perhaps is the “Pizza Gate” incident in 2016 where a man shot up a pizza place thinking it was host to a child sex trafficking ring (thankfully, no one was hurt).

Given this rash of “fake news,” I thought it might be interesting to observe that an analogous phenomenon can be seen in the study of early Christianity. There is quite a bit of “fake news” out there regarding the person of Jesus, the origins of the church, or the development of the Bible . Even though such “news” has no factual basis, it is believed by an uncomfortably large number of people.

One of the perennial questions for all theologians (and all human beings) is “Why do we suffer?” And, “If God is good and sovereign, why does he allow suffering?”

While most of us have these questions, we don’t really have to deal with them until we experience suffering ourselves. This is when we discover whether we really have a “theology of suffering” that can deal with the hard parts of life.

This is an area of theology which needs more attention. I am not talking about answers to the intellectual questions regarding the problem of evil and how to resolve it. Reformed folks have addressed that issue in spades.

What is needed instead is a robust accounting for the role suffering plays in the life of the Christian and how to endure it faithfully when it comes.

Since we live in a world that doesn’t view pastoral ministry as a high calling, it is probably no surprise that many do not view pastor’s wives as having a high calling either (including some pastor’s wives!).

I suppose there are many reasons why this is the case. Some people have an image in their head of what a pastor’s wife looks like (or should look like) and they simply don’t want that for themselves. Perhaps others think being a pastor’s wife means certain things it doesn’t necessarily mean. And others are probably wary of a life where you are often scrutinized, watched, and maybe even critiqued.

For all these reasons, I was pleased to give a talk on “The Importance of Being a Pastor’s Wife” to the gathering of women at last week’s PCA General Assembly in Greensboro, NC. It was a packed house so apparently there are many folks interested in that subject!

One of the things that makes the RTS Charlotte campus distinctive is the number of missionaries we have sent out over the years. For whatever providential reasons, God has allowed the Charlotte campus to be a fruitful training ground for folks headed to the mission field.

This missions “vibe” in Charlotte simply reflects the overall ethos we are shooting for here. We not only want our seminary to be theologically solid, but also outwardly focused and passionate about fulfilling the Great Commission.

And we can also add Namibia to the mix. The next installment in our Where Are They Now? series is Michael Knight (class of 2013) who is currently serving as a missionary in Namibia. Here is his interview: [Read more…]

When it comes to shepherding God’s flock, there is little doubt that pastors spend a disproportionate amount of time addressing marriage problems in their congregations. Since marriage is a foundational institution created by God (Gen 2:23-25), it is perhaps no surprise that Satan attacks it relentlessly.

One of the unique features of the book is the structure. It is arranged into 40 different questions about marriage and divorce which allows the reader to turn directly to the question that is most pertinent to the situation they are facing.

For anyone in pastoral ministry, or who regularly finds themselves in counseling situations, this volume is a treasure trove of biblical, theological, Christ-centered wisdom about marriage. And all of it is delivered with a gracious, warm pastoral touch that comes from Newheiser’s many years of pastoral and counseling experience. [Read more…]

You might recall her story from a couple of years ago. Dolezal was the civil rights activist and the former head of the NAACP in Spokane, WA. But, there was one little problem.

She wasn’t black.

Although she presented herself as African American–a bit of a prerequisite for heading up a chapter of the NAACP–it turns out that she was not black after all. Indeed she was a blonde, freckle-faced white girl born to two white parents. She had merely changed her outward appearance.

Not surprisingly, objective facts regarding biology, genetics, and ethnicity were not a deterrent to Dolezal’s insistence that she was black. “I identify as black,” she told Matt Lauer. In other words, I get to decide what is true. Reality is what I make it. [Read more…]

When it comes to finding good commentaries, one of the challenges is that most commentaries are limited by the the niche they are designed to fill.

Some commentaries are devotional. Some are exegetical. Some are practical/pastoral. And others are highly academic.

Rare is the commentary that can, at least at some level, address all of these important needs. While no commentary can do this perfectly (especially under 1000 pages!), some come closer than others.

One of those rare and exceptional volumes is the new commentary on the Pastoral Epistles–1 & 2 Timothy and Titus–by my friend Andreas Köstenberger. Andreas is the senior research professor of New Testament at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC. [Read more…]

Every summer and winter term, RTS Charlotte offers a slate of intensive week-long classes on a variety of subjects. These are designed to allow the student to knock-out a complete class in just a few days (although papers and exams are due later).

These sorts of classes are particularly popular for students who don’t live in Charlotte because they can come on campus for just a week and complete the lectures. It saves a ton of travel time.

This summer we have courses in Systematic Theology, Apologetics, Historical Theology, Campus Ministry, Preaching, New Testament and Biblical Counseling.

We covered all sorts of topics like the definition of canon, canonical models, the self-authenticating nature of canon, and the development of the canon in early Christianity.

These interviews are now available on the Bill’s Biblical Training website here (or click picture below).

As a side note, Bill has gathered a tremendous group of scholars together on his website who speak on a variety of other topics. Examples include Greg Beale, John Piper, Tom Schreiner, Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, and many others. Makes sure to check it out!

There is little doubt that the last year has been one of the most contentious political phases in our nation’s history. Thus it is no surprise that all sorts of Christian stock phrases about politics have been used and reused.

One of my favorites is the phrase, “Jesus is neither a Democrat nor a Republican.” This is one of those phrases that is used so frequently that no one really bothers to ask what it means; nor does anyone bother to ask whether it is really true.

So, I want to analyze this phrase in our 10th and final installment in the “Taking Back Christianese” series. Rather than following the standard structure for this series, I simply want to ask what people might mean by this phrase (and whether what they mean makes sense). Here are some options: [Read more…]

From 2014 to 2016, I taught a weekly Bible study on the RTS campus for women in the Charlotte community. We studied the book of Romans over the course of two years.

It was so encouraging to see the enthusiastic response from these women who were eager to learn more about the message of Romans. All 42 sessions are available on HD video (along with handouts) on the RTS Charlotte website here.

After taking a year off, we are kicking off the study again this coming fall. This time we will be studying the book of Hebrews. This is a fantastic book for many reasons, but most of all because it magnifies the supremacy of Christ in all things.

If you are in the area, we would love to have you join us. Or feel free to pass this info along to anyone you know who might be interested.

The format of the study will be similar to the prior years, but please see the details below: [Read more…]

As most readers know, there has been a long scholarly debate over what is known as the New Perspective(s) on Paul (NPP). This approach argues that “justification” in Paul does not mean what many Christians (especially Reformed folks) have always believed.

In short, NPP advocates (e.g., N.T. Wright, James D.G. Dunn) argue that when Paul mentions “justification by faith” he is not referring to a doctrine about how one gets saved but to how membership in the covenant community can be obtained without the standard Jewish boundary markers laid out in the law of Moses (food laws, circumcision, Sabbath observance).

In other words, justification is less about soteriology and more about ecclesiology. It is not about how a person becomes a Christian but a declaration that they have become a Christian. [Read more…]

One of the wonderful developments in Reformed denominations in the last generation is a renewed emphasis on church planting. It is a burgeoning movement in my denomination (PCA), and one of the reasons that RTS Charlotte launched the Center for Church Planting last Fall.

One of the notable features of this new church planting movement is the near exclusive focus on planting churches in cities. Most church planters, it seems, want to go urban and not rural.

And let me say that there are many positives about this focus on cities. Certainly, and most obviously, cities are filled with lots of people and for that reason alone make a good target area for church plants. There are also strategic considerations. Targeting leaders and influencers–many of which are located in major cities–makes a lot of sense.

However, in recent years, this interest in the urban has sometimes turned into a superiority of the urban, and even a disdain of the rural. Those who are a part of urban churches can sometimes project an attitude, even unwittingly, that urban centers are where “real” ministry happens. [Read more…]

When it comes to our justification–our legal standing before God–our own good works are in no way the grounds of God’s declaration that we are “righteous.” Indeed, that is the very thing that makes the gospel good news. We are saved not by what we have done, but by what Christ has done. We are accepted by God not because of our works, but in spite of them.

But what does God think of our good works after we are saved? Here is where, unfortunately, Christians often receive mixed messages. Somewhere along the way we have begun to believe that our pride is best held in check, and God’s grace is most magnified, when we denigrate all our efforts and all our labors as merely “filthy rags” in the sight of God (Is 64:6) .

But does God really view the Spirit-wrought works of his own children in such a fashion? Is God pleased with only Christ’s work, and always displeased with our own? [Read more…]

We were blessed to hear from Michael Tarwater, recently retired CEO of Carolinas Medical Center, one of the largest hospital systems in the Southeast. The Tarwaters have been long-time friends of the seminary.

And our musical guest was Andrew Peterson, one of the most gifted Christian artists today. Andrew played a number of songs from his recent album The Burning Edge of Dawn and he was a delight to listen to.

The theme of the evening was “In the world but not of it.” We explored how the seminary is equipping today’s leaders to withstand the barrage of challenges from our culture and to help Christians live out a faithful life in an ever more hostile world.

Here are a number of photos that capture the feel of evening. Enjoy! [Read more…]

RTS Charlotte has a big announcement as it pertains to our faculty. Here is the press release that went out today:

Reformed Theological Seminary is pleased to announce the appointment of Kevin DeYoung as Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at RTS Charlotte, beginning June 1, 2017. Kevin was formerly a Chancellor’s Professor for RTS, but will now be a residential, voting member of the Charlotte faculty, teaching several courses each academic year. [Read more…]

Last week I did a live “TV” interview with Ratio Christi on the topic, “Can We Trust the New Testament?” The interview covered a wide range of topics from textual criticism to bible contradictions to the development of the NT Canon. Here it is:

One of the most common misconceptions about the New Testament canon is that the authors of these writings had no idea that they were writing Scripture-like books. I dealt with this misconception on a general level here, showing that there was a clear apostolic self-awareness amongst the New Testament authors.

While this apostolic self-awareness may be easy to show for authors like Paul, what about the gospels which, technically speaking, are formally anonymous? Do their authors exhibit awareness that they were writing something like Scripture? To explore this further, let us just consider just one of our gospels, namely the Gospel of Matthew.

The first step is to get our expectations clear. We should not expect that Matthew would say something like, “I, Matthew, am writing Scripture as I write this book.” Gospels are a very different genre than epistles, and we would not expect the authors to provide the same type of direct and explicit statements about their own authority as Paul does in his letters. Indeed, the gospel authors are decidedly behind the scenes and only rarely make appearances within the flow of the story. [Read more…]

A number of years ago, my kids were into Veggie Tales. And, truthfully, so was I. It was actually quite enjoyable to watch these charming videos, cataloging the journeys of Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber, et al. Indeed, I could probably recite the opening song word for word.

The other day, my daughter Emma (who is now 16) told that she had heard some folks critiquing Veggie Tales as just “moralism” and not something Christians should let their kids be watching. So, she asked me what I thought about that.

This sort of critique reminded of an interview several years ago with World Magazine in which the creator of Veggie Tales, Phil Vischer, expressed regret over the “moralism” of Veggie Tales:

I looked back at the previous 10 years and realized I had spent 10 years trying to convince kids to behave Christianly without actually teaching them Christianity. And that was a pretty serious conviction. You can say, “Hey kids, be more forgiving because the Bible says so,” or “Hey kids, be more kind because the Bible says so!” But that isn’t Christianity, it’s morality.

Now, there is much to be commended in Vischer’s realization. Certainly Christianity is more than simply behaving in a certain way. Christianity, at its core, is about God’s redemptive work in Christ to save sinners by grace.

Moreover, when it comes to proclaiming the Christian message, we always need to present the imperative (here’s what you should do) within the context of the indicative (here’s what Christ has done). The latter is always the foundation for the former.

However, that said, I wonder if Veggie Tales can be so quickly swept aside as non-Christian. [Read more…]

We live in a culture where the thing that is most offensive is not doing something wrong, but telling someone else that they are doing something wrong.

Bad behavior gets a pass. Calling it bad behavior does not.

Of course, this cultural trend should not be surprising. We are told in Scripture that depraved cultures “call evil good and good evil” (Is 5:20).

But, living in a culture like this has had its effect on Christians. We have been conditioned to never condemn certain kinds of behavior lest we are chastened by an avalanche of social media accusing us of being legalistic and judgmental.

Thus, even in Christian circles we often hear the claim, “It’s not my place to judge someone else.”

This popular phrase is the next installment in the “Taking Back Christianese” series. Our purpose in this post (as in all the posts in this series) is simply to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of this phrase. We will do this by asking three questions: (1) Why do people use this phrase? (2) What is correct or helpful about this phrase? and (3) What is problematic about this phrase? [Read more…]

One of the fundamental question for Christians is whether Jesus claimed to be God. Did he really present himself as divine? Did the NT authors think Jesus was divine?

This issue has become especially important in recent years as some scholars continue to dispute whether Jesus ever claimed such a thing. Bart Ehrman’s, How Jesus Became God (HarperOne, 2014), is a key example.

For a response to Ehrman, see my review of his book here, and the full length work edited by Michael Bird, How God Became Jesus (Zondervan, 2014) which includes contributions from a number of scholars.

Although most discussions about the development of the canon focus on the patristic period (second century and later), there is much canonical gold yet to mine from the pages of the New Testament itself. Unfortunately, this step is often skipped.

There are a number of possible reasons for why it is skipped. But perhaps most people just assume that the whole idea of a “canon” is a late development anyway, and thus we wouldn’t expect to find anything about it in the New Testament books themselves.

Aside from the fact that such a position already presupposes an entire canonical “worldview” known as the extrinsic model (for my critique of this model see my book The Question of Canon), it keeps us from noticing some fascinating clues.

One passage that I think contains a number of intriguing clues is [Read more…]

As many of you know, last year our beloved Dr. Doug Kelly retired from RTS Charlotte after 33 years as a professor. He is now Professor of Theology Emeritus.

Upon his retirement many of us wondered who would replace Doug (and how that would even be possible!). In particular, we wondered whether this person could share Doug’s expertise in Trinitarian thought during the patristic period.

Our prayers were answered when we hired one of our own alumni (class of 2003), and former student of Dr. Kelly’s, Blair Smith.

Blair is now our new Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology. He is currently wrapping up his Ph.D. in Historical Theology (Patristics) at Durham University in England under Professor Lewis Ayres, one of the world’s leading patristic scholars. The working title of his dissertation is “The Fatherhood of God in Fourth-Century Pro-Nicene Trinitarian Theology.”

As an alum, Blair is the next installment of our Where Are They Now? series. Blair is married to Lisa, and they have 4 children: Eleanor, Douglas, Lucile, and Graham. [Read more…]

One of the most-oft repeated ideas about the earliest Christians is that they believed that the Kingdom of God would come (apocalyptically) within their own lifetime. In fact Schweitzer famously argued that Jesus himself thought the world would end in his own lifetime; of course the world didn’t end and Jesus died disillusioned on the cross saying, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34).

In recent years, some have suggested that this belief in early Christianity would even have affected the development of the canon. If Christians thought the world would end in their own lifetime, then, it is argued, they would not have been interested in composing new scriptural books. Thus, the idea of a canon must be a later ecclesiastical development.

Since the Spring 2017 academic term just began, I thought it would be helpful to highlight what our faculty have been up to (at least as it pertains to publications) over the last year.

One of the blessings of being at the Charlotte campus is that I get to serve with some of the finest faculty in the country in their respective fields. If you are planning to go to seminary, and you are making a decision this Spring, then hopefully this list will help!

Here is a quick sampling of some recent activity (alphabetized by author): [Read more…]

One of the most common objections made to the absolute claims of Christianity is that Christians are arrogant. Christians are arrogant to claim that they are right; arrogant to claim others are wrong; arrogant to claim that truth can be known.

Unfortunately, in the midst of such accusations, no one bothers to ask which definition of humility is being used.

Over the years, the definition of humility has undergone a gradual but nonetheless profound change. Especially in the intellectual community. In the modern day, humility has basically become synonymous with another word: uncertainty.

To be uncertain is to be humble. To be certain is to be arrogant. Thus, the cardinal sin in the intellectual world is to claim to know anything for sure.

Of course, this shift presents a real problem for Christianity. Christians believe that God has revealed himself clearly in his Word. Thus, when it comes to key historical questions (Who was Jesus? What did he say? What did he do?) or key theological questions (Who is God? What is Heaven? How does one get there?), Christians believe they have a basis on which they can claim certainty: God’s revelation. [Read more…]

How do modern psychological theories fit with the Christian worldview? That is an enormously important question.

If you want to explore the answers to that question, then you will want to know that this week (Jan 16-20) RTS Charlotte hosts Dr. Heath Lambert who will teach our Theology and Secular Psychology course. This course is part of Charlotte’s biblical counseling degree program.

One of the joys of training seminary students is sending them out and watching how they bless the lives of so many other people. While there is always a sadness with the departure of each graduating class, that sadness is lessened by the joy that comes from seeing the impact of their ministries.

But every once in a while, one of those grads returns.

That is what happened with Dave Latham (class of 2010), who is the next installment in the Where Are They Now? alumni series. After five years in RUF, Dave returned in 2015 to join the RTS Charlotte team as our Director of Admissions. And it has been a delight having him back.

As one of our own grads, Dave understands as well as anyone the vision, ethos, and distinctives of RTS. If you are thinking about seminary, I encourage you to reach out to him (you can begin here).

In any election year (especially one as tumultuous and exhausting as 2016), there will be claims and counter-claims about what values and principles should guide the United States of America.

And such debates inevitably lead to appeals to the history and heritage of our country. What principles guided the founding fathers? Were the founding fathers Christians? Were the founding documents Christian in nature?

Our purpose in this post (as in all the posts in this series) is simply to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of this phrase. We will do this by asking three questions: (1) Why do people use this phrase? (2) What is correct or helpful about this phrase? and (3) What is problematic about this phrase?

Why Do People Use This Phrase?

There are a number of reasons this phrase is used by believers. Some may simply use it historically. It is a phrase that attempts to capture some historical truths about our country and how it was conceived. As for whether this phrase accurately captures such truths, that is something we will address below.

But other believers may use it as more of an argument. Given the rapid moral and cultural decline of our country, the idea that “America is a Christian nation” is designed to stem the tide. It is a way of pushing back against the secularization all around us by reminding people that things were not always this way. It reminds people that Christians were, at one time, not viewed as cultural pariahs.

What is Correct or Helpful about This Phrase?

One of the challenges of this phrase is that people can mean dramatically different things when they use it. So it might be helpful to get some of the options on the table. The following list (not exhaustive) moves from the most stringent interpretation of the phrase to the most lax: [Read more…]

In order to make seminary as accessible and flexible as possible, RTS offers week-long intensive classes in both Winter (January) and Summer terms. The students receive all the lectures in a single 5-day block (Mon-Fri), and then complete the assignments and exams over the following months.

This is particularly useful for students who don’t live in Charlotte but are willing to travel here for one week to knock out a class. Our world class hub airport makes that particularly easy!

If you are interested to see what is coming this Winter, here is the lineup below: [Read more…]

Few issues in the study of the NT canon have generated more discussion (and disagreement) than that of the canon’s date. When were Christian writings first regarded as “Scripture”? When was the first time we can see that happening?

For many modern scholars, the key time is the end of the second century. Only then, largely due to the influence of Irenaeus, were these books first regarded as Scripture.

But, I think there is evidence that NT books were regarded as Scripture much earlier. And some of this evidence is routinely overlooked. A good example is the widely neglected text tucked away in 1 Tim 5:18:

For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and “The laborer deserves his wages.”

The first part of this quote comes from Deut 25:4, but where does the second part come from? There is one text, and one text only, that matches these words, namely the statement of Jesus in Luke 10:7.

When it comes to understanding the gospel of salvation by grace alone, there are few books more foundational than Romans.

It was Romans that Martin Luther was reading when the light clicked on regarding justification: “The righteous shall live by faith” (1:17). And it was Romans that Augustine read when he heard the child’s voice say tolle lege: “So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light” (13:12).

That very verse led to Augustine’s conversion.

The impact of Romans has been felt in every generation of the church. And, of course, we can’t forget Martin Lloyd-Jones’ legendary series preaching through Romans on Friday nights at Westminster Chapel in London. Before it was all done, his series spanned 11 years and 372 sermons.

And I have personally been immersed in Romans over the last few years as I have taught a weekly RTS Charlotte women’s Bible study on the book. You can watch all 42 HD videos of the series here.

For all these reasons, I was excited to talk in October with my friend Nancy Guthrie about how to teach the book of Romans. Nancy has been doing a fantastic audio series entitled “Help Me Teach the Bible” where she interviews pastors and scholars on various books. I was privileged to be a part of it.

You can read about my interview on the TGC website here. To listen, here is part 1 of my conversation with Nancy, on Romans 1-7: [Read more…]

In the world of biblical studies, at least among some critical scholars, Gnosticism has been the darling for sometime now. Especially since the discovery of the so-called “Gnostic Gospels” at Nag Hammadi in 1945, scholars have sung the praises of this alternative version of Christianity.

Gnosticism was a heretical version of Christianity that burst on the scene primarily in the second century and gave the orthodox Christians a run for their money. And it seems that some scholars look back and wish that the Gnostics had prevailed.

After all, it is argued, traditional Christianity was narrow, dogmatic, intolerant, elitist, and mean-spirited, whereas Gnosticism was open-minded, all-welcoming, tolerant and loving. Given this choice, which would you choose?

While this narrative about free-spirited Gnosticism being sorely oppressed by those mean and uptight orthodox Christians might sound rhetorically compelling, it simply isn’t borne out by the facts. So, here are five claims often made about Gnosticism that prove to be more myth than reality: [Read more…]

I just learned here that the well-known evangelical scholar Thomas Oden has passed away. Oden was known for starting out as a classic liberal scholar and later becoming orthodox–a rare feat in today’s world.

I think that book (and the summary below) captures the essence of his life’s story. And it has a number of things to teach evangelical scholars in the academy today. If you have a scholar in your life, and are looking for a good Christmas gift, buy them Oden’s book.

When I originally published the article (see here), I received a kind email from Tom saying how much he appreciated it. That was encouraging to me. So, I publish the article again here and hope it is encouraging to you: [Read more…]

In that post, I argued that this phrase is frequently misunderstood and misused. Paradoxically, some use the phrase to bolster the seriousness of sin (by arguing every sin is equally a big deal), while other use the phrase to downplay the seriousness of sin (by arguing that no sins are any worse than others).

In short, I argued that while no sin is small, some sins are smaller (or larger). Put differently, sin is serious enough that one is sufficient to separate you from God, but that does not mean all sins are equally heinous.

After writing that article, and seeing the response that it received, I decided to poke around Twitter to see how common this belief “all sins are equal” really is. I was surprised by what I found.

Of course, what people say on Twitter is not a scientific test of what people generally believe. But, it is illuminating nonetheless. Below are a few examples to give you a feel for how the phrase “all sins are equal” is being used in our world today.

I encourage you to read each one. It is a stunning picture of what our world believes about sin. And here is the thing to realize: what a person believes about sin really does affect their behavior. [Read more…]

For advocates of Reformed theology, we are keen to emphasize the seriousness of sin. Sin is a big deal. Each and every one of them. Indeed, this is precisely why we all desperately need a Savior.

As true as this is, however, our enthusiasm for maintaining the seriousness of sin (which is good) can lead us to make additional statements which may not be so true (depending on how they are understood). One of these statements, and the next installment in our “Taking Back Christianese” series, is, “All sins are equal in God’s sight.”

On the surface, this phrase seems like a great way to uphold our commitment to sin’s seriousness. It is the equivalent of the phrase “there are no little sins” (a line you probably first heard from your parents after you locked your little sister in her room).

Our purpose in this post (as in all the posts in this series) is simply to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of this phrase. We will do this by asking three questions: (1) Why do people use this phrase? (2) What is correct or helpful about this phrase? and (3) What is problematic about this phrase? [Read more…]

When I was a kid, I always used to enjoy the “whack a mole” game at the local arcade (yes, we had to go to an “arcade” to play games). You had be quick to win that game. Each time you hit a mole, another would pop up, taking its place.

Of course, that is what made the game both fun and frustrating at the same time. No matter how hard you worked, it always seemed that the moles just wouldn’t go away.

Sometimes it’s like that in the world of biblical scholarship. Theories pop up, are quickly refuted by the academy, and then, just when you think they have gone away, they pop again. Some theories just keep coming back.

In 2003, Dan Brown’s best-selling fictional book The Da Vinci Code raised (again) the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that this fact had been cleverly suppressed by the church for thousands of years. Apparently it took a fictional author to uncover the “real” truth.

Brown was not the first to make such a claim, of course, but his book gave it new life. At least for a while. But, after a chorus of scholars showed the claim to be (again) without merit, the chatter about Mary Magdalene died down a bit.

The debate in our culture over sexuality has been raging for a while now. And sometimes it is difficult to find calm and clear voices who can cut through the rhetoric and the posturing and just provide solid biblical teaching on these complex issues.

For this reason, I am thankful for RTS Charlotte’sDr. James Anderson, associate professor of theology and philosophy. In the video below, Dr. Anderson addresses our students at a lunch-time conversation on the issue of transgenderism. It is a wonderfully clear and concise treatment of this important subject.

James is one of the brightest minds in philosophical theology today. Check out his website here, and his latest book Why Should I Believe Christianity?If you are looking to study apologetics, philosophy, or theology, you need to come to Charlotte to study with him.

In this video, James lays out eight helpful theses about transgenderism, followed by some interesting Q&A. Here are the theses: [Read more…]

Over the last decade, I have taught an elective here at the RTS Charlotte campus entitled “The Origin and Authority of the NT Canon.” We cover a variety of subjects related to the origins of the NT, including definition of canon, theology of canon, epistemology of canon, the historical reception of the canon, and so on.

It was this class that gave birth to my book, Canon Revisited (Crossway, 2012). I was unable to find a book on canon that answered the questions my students were asking. So, I decided to write one that did!

On of my favorite parts of the class has been a section where we explore early New Testament manuscripts and the way those manuscripts inform us about the history of the NT. We also read from high resolution photographs of P66–a late second-century copy of the Gospel of John (see inset photo). [Read more…]

Over the years, I have noticed that the Reformed folks have a robust doctrine of sin, but (in my opinion) a fairly thin doctrine of suffering. And this is true in the broader evangelical world as well.

We tend to think of sin as simply impacting behavior or ethical choices. And we sometimes forget that sin also impacts every aspect of creation. We live in a fallen, broken world. So, we should not be surprised when our lives are affected by that fallen, broken world.

As a result of this blind spot, most people simply don’t know how to suffer or grieve biblically. Even more, most people don’t know how to minister to a person who is suffering.

For these reasons, I was thankful to host David and Nancy Guthrie on the RTS Charlotte campus a couple of weeks ago. They came to speak on the topic of “What Grieving People Wish You Knew.” [Read more…]

The new center will include a MDiv emphasis in church planting along with a host of other types of specialized training for church planters. The church planting students will benefit from church planting conferences and lectures, mentoring from experienced church planters, internship opportunities in local church plants, and a church planters fellowship were students can grow and learn in a tight-knit community.

To my knowledge, this is the only program of its kind at a Reformed seminary in the United States. [Read more…]

For some time now, youth ministry in our churches has needed a makeover. Many have been concerned that the average American evangelical youth ministry is high on entertainment, low on biblical/theological instruction, and tends to separate youth into their own sub-culture apart from their families and the rest of the church.

Now certainly this isn’t true of every youth ministry (or youth pastor). There are many solid, faithful, biblical youth pastors who just want to love teenagers and lead them to follow Christ.

Even so, Reformed theology has not seemed to penetrate the world of youth ministry as it has college ministry and general adult ministry.

For this reason, I am thankful for Wes Andrews (class of 2012) who is the next installment in our Where Are They Now?alumni series. Wes is a youth pastor who has allowed Reformed theology to inform all aspects of his ministry to youth. It is exciting to see how God is using him to reach youth and families without all the gimmicks our culture typically expects. [Read more…]

I thought book banning was supposed to be a thing of the past–particularly among the self-proclaimed liberal elites. We live in a more sophisticated time where all views are accepted. Tolerance should be our highest priority.

Or so we are told.

But, apparently book banning is back in vogue. Dr. John Kutsko, executive director of the Society of Biblical Literature, has just proposed that InterVarsity Press–one of the largest evangelical presses in the country– be suspended from having a book stall at the annual SBL meeting (starting in 2017).

The reason for this ban is the recent decision by InterVarsity to uphold the biblical view of marriage and to ask their employees to do the same (see IVP clarification on their policy here).

Since I have a current book with IVP Academic, The Question of Canon, and a forthcoming book with them on Christianity in the second century, SBL would effectively be banning my books from the annual meeting. And that would be true for hundreds and hundreds of other IVP authors.

Of course, the overt hypocrisy of this is stunning. An organization that professes to be for tolerance and for accepting all opinions, has now decided to be, in effect, a “confessional” institution where the ideologies of the ruling committee decide what people should and shouldn’t believe. [Read more…]

Some of us grew up in churches where it seemed every Sunday included an atlar call. Congregants were invited to walk the aisle and to make a “decision” for Christ.

During these occasions, very specific language would be used to explain how a person becomes a Christian. “Just ask Jesus into your heart,” was the common refrain, usually followed by an appeal to Rev 3:20, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him.”

Thus, we come to the next installment in the “Taking Back Christianese” series. Our purpose here is to evaluate the phrase, “Just ask Jesus into your heart.” Like most of the phrases in this series, it can have both positive and negative aspects, depending on how it is used. [Read more…]

Although seminary is a challenging experience in and of itself, something more formidable (at least in terms of stress) awaits most students. The dreaded ordination exam.

This is the time when a candidate stands up in front of the presbytery (perhaps with 50 -75 elders in attendance) and is publicly examined, probed, prodded, and picked at for several hours on a variety of topics ranging from church history to sacraments to eschatology to the famed Book of Church Order.

And from candidate’s perspective, it is easy to feel like you are looking into the eyes of a hungry cat. And you are the mouse.

So, needless to say, I have often been asked about whether I have any pieces of advice for students entering into this process. Although this is by no means exhaustive, here are a few thoughts that I hope are helpful: [Read more…]

When we think about what might help the church engage with an ever-more-hostile world, the issue isn’t that we don’t have enough apologetic books (we have tons of them). The issue is that we don’t have the right kind of apologetic books.

There is a trend in apologetics today towards what I might call a “minimalistic” approach to defending the faith. Basically this is where someone tries to prove the least amount possible about Christianity in order to get the non-Christian to take one step in our direction. And this is typically done with an evidentialist methodology using the so-called consensus of modern scholars as the main authority.

There are a number of challenges to this sort of approach which I cannot take up here. But, what is needed is an apologetic approach that is more full-orbed, holistic, and worldview-oriented. Such an approach doesn’t simply try to placate the non-Christian by meeting his requirements, but it challenges the non-Christian’s worldview from the inside out.

One of the things we love here at RTS Charlotte is church planting. In fact, we have just launched this fall the new Center for Church Planting on the Charlotte campus. It’s still in its infancy, but you can read the initial announcement here.

On this note, I am pleased that this installment of our Where Are They Now? alumni series features Chad Grindstaff (class of 2005 ). Chad is a church-planter in Cincinnati and is a great example of how our grads are planting new churches all over the country (and the world) .

Here is his interview:

1. What are you currently doing?

We are in the fourth year of a church plant in a suburb northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio.

One of the most profound challenges for Christians as we live in an ever-more-hostile world is how to properly defend the faith against the incessant attacks against it. And these attacks have taken their toll. We have seen far too many casualties over the years as people leave the church because they had doubts or questions that were never answered.

It is precisely this issue that is behind Andy Stanley’s recent sermon, “The Bible Told Me So” (preached Aug 28, 2016). Stanley, son of well-known Atlanta pastor, Charles Stanley, is the senior pastor of Northpoint Community Church in Alpharetta, GA.

Stanley’s concern in this sermon is for those who have experienced what he calls “deconversions”—people who went to church as a child but have drifted away from the faith as they have reached adulthood. They drifted away because they went to a church that refused to answer their difficult questions and insisted that they were “just supposed to have faith.”

There is little doubt that Stanley has put his finger on a critical issue for the church today, and he should be commended for it. We need to find a compelling way to address the questions and doubts people have about their faith without ducking the hard questions.

But while Stanley has correctly diagnosed the disease, serious questions remain about whether he has offered an adequate cure. Indeed, in many ways, his suggested cure becomes problematic enough that one begins to wonder whether it just might be more troubling than the disease itself.

So what is the cure that Stanley has offered? In brief, Christians need to stop basing their faith on the Bible. [Read more…]

Here at RTS Charlotte, we are very excited about the recent arrival of Dr. Jim Newheiser, our new Associate Professor of Christian Counseling and Practical Theology, and the Director of the Counseling Program.

Our program has assembled some of the finest faculty in biblical counseling today, as we have drawn upon leading figures all over the country. Visiting professors have included David Powlison, Ed Welch, Rod Mays, Heath Lambert, Deepak Reju, Todd Stryd, Tim Lane, Jeff Forrey, and others.

But, every program needs a director, and we are thrilled Dr. Newheiser has joined our faculty.

Recently (Aug, 30, 2016), Dr. Newheiser offered the opening lecture of the year at our kick-off convocation event entitled, “The Relationship Between Biblical Counseling and Preaching in the Local Church.” Here is the video (starts with my welcome and then moves to Dr. Newheiser’s lecture): [Read more…]

Of course, in the Reformed world, the idea that the work of Christ can be divided into his three “offices” (prophet, priest, and king) has a long lineage. Although it appears in a number of places in the early fathers, the Reformers were the ones who expounded on it more fully. Examples include John Calvin, John Owen, John Flavel, Thomas Boston, and Thomas Goodwin. It is also discussed in the Heidelberg Catechism (31-32).

So, it is a wonder that more hasn’t been written on it (at least in a full-length work) until now.

The wildly popular song “Let it Go,” from the movie Frozen, has the following lyrics:

It’s time to see what I can do To test the limits and break through No right, no wrong, no rules for me I’m free!

No doubt this captures the sentiment of much of our culture. People are looking to break through any last vestige of rules in our modern world. And they define the lack of rules–no right or wrong–as freedom.

Christians sometimes use a phrase that captures (or at least can capture) a similar sentiment, “We have freedom in Christ.” And Christians use this phrase in drastically different ways. Indeed, it is hard to imagine of phrase that has so much potential for being both biblical and unbiblical depending on how it is used.

This is a new New Testament introduction composed of contributions from professors at Reformed Theological Seminary, both past and present. The multi-author nature of the volume allows each prof to focus in upon their area of expertise–something not many intros are able to do.

But, there is another thing that is special about this new volume. It puts the focus on the message and theology of the biblical books. Most introductions tend to be heavily weighted towards technical, higher-critical background issues that most lay folks struggle to understand. But this volume is designed to help pastors and lay-leaders effectively communicate the message of these books to their audience.

Simply put, this volume was designed to help people teach the Word of God.

Thus, one of the key points that emerged during the interview was that I hope this volume can meet a real need among not only pastors, but lay leaders in the church.

Note: I post the article below every year as seminary students arrive. I hope it will prove helpful for a new group of readers (or maybe even prior ones!)

A few weeks ago, a new crop of seminary students began the grueling month-long experience of Summer Greek. And, like all seminary students before them, they will begin to ask the question of why studying these ancient languages even matters. After all, a few years after graduation all will be forgotten. In the midst of a busy pastoral life, who could possibly maintain proficiency in the languages?

As a result of these questions, some students decide (very early on) that the biblical languages are just something to be endured. They are like a hazing ritual at a college fraternity. No one likes it, but you have to go through it to be in the club. And then it will be over.

Behind this “take your medicine” approach to the biblical languages are a couple of assumptions that need to be challenged. First, the characterization of pastoral ministry as somehow incompatible with the languages (due to busyness, or other causes), is an unfortunate misunderstanding of what a pastorate is all about. No doubt, pastors should be busy shepherding their flock, meeting with ministry leaders, and running the church. But, the core of the calling is to be a “minister of the word.”

And if the pastoral call is to be a minister of the Word, then there is a significant component of pastoral life that should be devoted to serious study of the biblical text—beyond just the preparation for that week’s sermon. Put differently, pastors should continue to be students. They need to be readers, thinkers, and theologians.

It is now clear that our culture’s quest for sexual freedom is leading to some problematic and disturbing places. A few years ago it was homosexual marriage and now it is the transgender movement. It is frightening to think of what is next (here is one possibility).

There are a number of helpful resources that Christians have offered to respond to these trends. But, I appreciate this recent and brief (only 3+ minutes) video by RTS Charlotte professor of theology and philosophy, James Anderson.

James is one of the brightest minds in philosophical theology today. Check out his website here, and his latest book What’s Your Worldview?If you are looking to study apologetics, philosophy, or theology, you need to come to Charlotte to study with him.

Here is James’ answer to the question: “What is the Christian Response to Transgenderism?”:

As many of you know, this past Spring I finished two years of teaching through the book of Romans in a community Bible study held here on the RTS Charlotte campus.

The Romans study was held every Wednesday morning for women in the Charlotte community. I had the idea for this study a few years ago as I was looking for an opportunity to connect with the people in the city of Charlotte outside the formal classroom setting. A lot of people are too intimidated to take one of the standard seminary classes, but I thought they may be willing to come on campus an participate in “normal” Bible Study.

As for why a women’s study, I simply thought that might work better in terms of building community among the participants. And it seemed to be a hit, because we had 100-120 women attending regularly for two years. It shows there is a real need in our world for the simple, basic teaching of God’s Word.

The 42 installments of this study are now available on a Youtube channel that you can find here. They are all filmed in HD quality and really turned out great. Our director of visual media, Matt McQuade, did a fantastic job.

How and when the early church recognized the 27 books in our New Testament has always been a fascinating topic for people. There is innate curiosity within us about why these books were regarded as Scripture and not others.

Unfortunately, the high level of interest in the New Testament canon is often combined with a high number of misconceptions about the canon. For anyone willing to search for it, the internet is packed with myths, mistakes, and misunderstandings about how the whole process really worked.

While there is no quick cure for such misconceptions, there is one essential key that really helps clear away the cobwebs. And that key is understanding the different categories of books in early Christianity.

We tend to think there are only two categories, those books that are “in” and those books that are “out.” But, early Christians were more nuanced than than this. In fact, they divided up books into four categories. And understanding these categories will clear up a good number of the misunderstandings of the way the canon developed.

We will take our cue from the four categories laid out by the well-known fourth century historian Eusebius in Hist. eccl. 3.25.1-7:

Larry allowed me to see a pre-published version of the book and I can tell you that it is (not surprisingly) an excellent piece of work and a fascinating look at the way early Christians fit (and didn’t fit) into their Greco-Roman context.

Although most modern Western individuals see Christianity as typical of all religions around the world (usually with the “all religions are the same” line added in for good measure), this volume works to shatter that misconception. Historically speaking, argues Hurtado, Christianity was radically different than the surrounding religious world into which it was born. Here are a few of the features he points out:

1. Christianity allowed “religion” to be separated from the standard ethnic/national identity it was typically associated with. For most Roman citizens, your religion was not easily distinguished from your citzenship–the two were bound together. But, Christianity came along and people from all walks of life, all ethnicities and nationalities, began to identify themselves as followers of Jesus. The Roman government did not know how to handle this unusual new approach. Christianity was neither Jewish nor Greek (in the typical way it was conceived). Christians were a “third race.”

In this class, we will be covering not just the history and development of the canon, but also its theological meaning, and its epistemological foundation. In other words, we will not only discuss when these books were recognized, but we will explore how we know which books belong and which do not.

So, the class will cover the various canonical models present in theological circles today, as well as responding to modern historical-critical scholars who attack its integrity.

One other interesting part of the course is that we will do in-class reading from high resolution photos of the Greek manuscript P66, an almost complete copy of John’s gospel dated c.200. This is one of the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament that we possess and provides a wonderful introduction to the world of ancient manuscripts. We will discuss not only the Greek text, but scribal habits, inscriptional features, nomina sacra, and more.

As one might guess, the base textbook for this class will my Canon Revisited (Crossway, 2012). But, I will also be using other texts and articles along the way.

Probably too late for many of you to consider taking this course, but if you are in the area, and have some free time, come and join us. You can read more about it here.

And, as an additional note, the class is being recorded by our Global Campus and should be available online in the year to come.

Imagine this scenario. Your friend at church (who is a believer) comes to you and confesses an ugly sin they committed. And they feel terrible about it. What do you say?

No doubt this scenario is played out countless times a week in evangelical churches all over the country–particularly given the church’s fascination with authenticity and vulnerability (see my post on that issue here). And it is not always easy to know how to respond.

But here’s one response that gets used a lot: “Don’t feel bad about this sin. If you are a believer, then God is always pleased with you. He can never be more pleased with you than he is right now.”

Is this response helpful? Yes and no. It depends on what a person means and how they frame it.

Our purpose in this post (as in all the posts in this series) is simply to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of this phrase. We will do this by asking three questions: (1) Why do people use this phrase? (2) What is correct or helpful about this phrase? and (3) What is problematic about this phrase?

Ever since Krister Stendahl’s seminal essay, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” one of the foundational arguments for the New Perspective(s) on Paul (NPP) has been that the traditional protestant/reformed view of justification is largely due to the cultural influence of “the West” and its emphasis on individualism and subjectivism.

Paul is not really concerned with individual sin, guilt and forgiveness (we are told). Reformed folks are simply reading that issue into the text due to their cultural situation.

Indeed, this is precisely what Stendahl says about Luther himself. The Reformed view of justification is largely due, argues Stendahl, to Luther’s individual struggle with is own conscience:

In Protestant Christianity–which, however, at this point has its roots in Augustine and the piety of the Middle Ages–the Pauline awareness of sin has been interpreted in the light of Luther’s struggle with his conscience (Stendahl, 79).

In place of the reformed view of justification, NPP advocates have suggested that Paul is really working on a more corporate/community level. Paul’s struggle is not over how a sinner stands before a holy God, but his struggle is how to unify Jew and Gentile into one community. Thus justification, it is argued, is really about overcoming ethnocentrism and nationalism.

So convinced are the NPP advocates of their correction of reformed/protestant readings of Paul that they use the entire issue as a lesson of how hermeneutics can be affected by cultural contexts. And apparently NPP folks are the ones that finally see Paul clearly without being clouded by their cultural situation:

Luther read Paul and the situation confronting Paul through the grid of his own experience…Now, however, in the light of Sanders’ contribution the scales have fallen from many eyes (James, Dunn, Partings of the Ways, 14).

But is this really the case? Is it true that NPP folks have somehow been able to do what reformed folks have not, namely throw off the shackles of cultural influence and see the real Paul? Are they able to rise above their cultural circumstances and engage only in objective exegesis (whatever that might be)?

Last year I posted an article entitled “What Is The Earliest Complete List of the Canon of the New Testament?” In that post I argued, contrary to common opinion, that the earliest (nearly complete) list is not Athanasius’ Festal Letter in 367. Instead, the earliest complete list occurs more than a century earlier in the writings of Origen (see picture).

My blog post was based off a fuller academic piece I wrote for the recent festschrift for Larry Hurtado, Mark Manuscripts and Monotheism (edited by Chris Keith and Dieter Roth; T&T Clark, 2015), entitled, “Origen’s List of New Testament Books in Homiliae on Josuam 7.1: A Fresh Look.”

Around 250 A.D., in his typical allegorical fashion, Origen used the story of Joshua to describe what seems to be the complete New Testament canon:

As most readers know, there has been a long scholarly debate over what is known as the New Perspective(s) on Paul (NPP). This approach argues that “justification” in Paul does not mean what many Christians (especially Reformed folks) have always believed.

In short, NPP advocates (e.g., N.T. Wright, James D.G. Dunn) argue that (a) first-century Judaism was not a works-oriented religion, and (b) “justification by faith” is not referring to the acquisition of a righteous status before God, but instead refers to the fact that membership in the covenant community can be obtained without the standard Jewish boundary markers laid out in the law of Moses (inset is a picture of Mt. Sinai).

One of the major flash points in this debate is the term “righteousness of God.” Paul uses this phrase in a number of places, but it takes center stage particularly in Romans. Indeed, one might suggest that the “righteousness of God” is the theme of the entire book:

For in it [the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith” (Rom 1:17).

So, what does this phrase mean? NPP advocates say it refers simply to God’s covenantal faithfulness. Reformed theologians have argued that it refers to a righteous status received from God.

In American evangelicalism over the last decade, there has been a resurgence of interest in what might be called “deed” ministry. Christians should not be concerned only about evangelism, it is argued, but also about caring for the practical, day-to-day needs of our unbelieving neighbors.

This sentiment is captured in a phrase that is being used more and more these days: “Preach the Gospel; if necessary, use words.” This is the next installment in the “Taking Back Christianese” series originally announced here.

Our purpose in this post (as in all the posts in this series) is simply to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of this phrase. We will do this by asking three questions: (1) Why do people use this phrase? (2) What is correct or helpful about this phrase? and (3) What is problematic about this phrase?

Why Do People Use This Phrase?

A version of this phrase is said to go back to St. Francis of Assisi, a Catholic Friar and preacher in the middle ages, though this attribution is uncertain. Regardless, most people in the modern day simply use the phrase to emphasize the importance of Christian social action.

Thus, most people use this phrase as another way to express the sentiment, “actions speak louder than words.” If Christians are going to be effective in their witnessing, we are told, then they must accompany it with actions that help the poor, downtrodden and outcast.

This renewed emphasis on social action is due, in large part, to frustration with prior generations of Christians that seemed concerned only with proclamation and not with good deeds. Younger generations of Christians use this phrase to push back against what they perceive as an isolationist/separationist mentality in prior generations.

This week I am off to the PCA General Assembly in Mobile, AL. There are a number of interesting (and some controversial) overtures on the docket this year, so it should be a busy week. But aside from the formal business, one of the most profitable aspects of GA is connecting with old friends, classmates, and colleagues.

Also, you will not want to miss the larger RTS alumni lunch, which is Thursday June 23 at noon, in the East Ballroom of the convention center. You will get a chance to hear from our Chancellor Ligon Duncan and will get updates on all our campuses and latest news.

Let me also call your attention to the annual Gospel Reformation Network (GRN) luncheon on Wed, June 22, at noon in the Convention Center (you do have to register ahead of time). I will be participating in a panel discussion about the doctrine of sanctification in Reformed circles.

Look forward to seeing you at GA this week. If you see me, please stop and say hello!

It has been a while since the so-called Gospel of Jesus’ Wife has been in the headlines. It was originally unveiled by Karen King at Harvard (here), but quickly exposed as a likely forgery. I have also written on the fragment (here and here).

While this document’s status as a forgery is relatively certain, what has been uncertain (until now) is the identity of the forger. Who was the person who created this document and convinced King and others to promote it?

The forger must have had some Coptic abilities. But, the abilities would have had limits–as demonstrated by the mistakes in the Coptic text.

What is remarkable is that King herself has not undertaken a rigorous investigation of the document’s origins and provenance. Who discovered this document? Who owned it? And how was it passed along? If the authenticity of a document is in doubt, this is an important avenue to pursue. But no one has wanted to pursue it.

But, now someone finally has. A journalist named Ariel Sabar has just published a splendid piece in The Atlantic documenting the history of this forgery and tracing it back to the current owner, and likely forger, a rather shady German business man, and washed-out Coptic student, named Walter Fritz.

Over the last several years, I have been running a RTS Charlotte alumni series called “Where Are They Now?” (see the complete series here). Since this is the time of year for alumni reunions at the various denominational gatherings, I thought I would add the latest installment.

This post highlights one of our best and brightest, alumnus Alex Shipman (class of 2008). In addition to his pastoral duties, Alex leads the African American Presbyterian Fellowship (AAPF) for the PCA. As described in one of their newsletters, the mission of the AAPF is “to work within the denomination to expand African Americans’ presence, involvement and leadership.”

What are you currently doing?

I’m senior pastor of The Village Church in Huntsville, AL and I also lead the African American Presbyterian Fellowship (AAPF).

Why did you originally come to RTS?

I came because it’s the Right Theological Seminary. Ok, I’m being serious! I visited RTS during summer of 2003 at the urging of my wife whom I was dating at the time. I decided to attend RTS for two reasons. First, Dr. Rod Culbertson made me feel welcome during my campus visit. Second, I was able to get ministry experience in a local church while attending RTS.

Over the last ten years, especially in Reformed circles, there has emerged a vision of the Christian life where one of the defining characteristics of a believer has now become transparency. A Christian is someone who is authentic, real, and open.

While prior generations might have suggested the essential mark of a Christian was obedience, those days seem long gone. In fact, for many (post)modern Christians the central issue is not whether someone obeys God’s law but whether they are honest about whether they have obeyed God’s law.

Authenticity has become (for some) the number one virtue.

Thus, we come to our very first instance of Christianese: “The Christian life is all about being transparent and vulnerable.” This is the first installment in the “Taking Back Christianese” series originally announced here.

Our purpose in this post (as in all the posts in this series) is simply to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of this phrase. We will do this by asking three questions: (1) Why do people use this phrase? (2) What is correct or helpful about this phrase? and (3) What is problematic about this phrase?

As we answer these questions, it is important to be reminded again that these phrases are not included in this series because they are (necessarily) mistaken. This is not a series about wrong Christian phrases. On the contrary, these phrases (at least understood correctly) can capture helpful biblical truths. But–and this is the main issue–these phrases are often misunderstood. And thus they are subject to abuse and misuse.

RF&P will be publishing three times a year with contributions mainly from RTS faculty across our numerous campuses: Charlotte, Jackson, Orlando, Washington D.C., Atlanta, New York, and Houston. But there will also be contributions from scholars outside the RTS orbit.

In the introduction of the inaugural volume, editor John Muether provides an explanation of what RF&P is trying to accomplish:

We write from convictions that comport with the mission of RTS, which is “to serve the church by preparing its leaders, through a program of graduate theological education, based upon the authority of the inerrant Word of God, and committed to the Reformed faith.” An ecclesial focus will, we hope, be especially prominent in these pages as we seek (in the language of the RTS vision statement) to serve Christ’s church “in all branches of evangelical Christianity, especially Presbyterian and Reformed churches.” Thus our pledge is that we will commend the Reformed faith with a particular view toward the well-being of Reformed churches. While we aim to maintain high levels of scholarship, we write as servants of the church. Even more specifically, we seek to serve alumni of Reformed Theological Seminary with hope that RF&P will be an ongoing source of wisdom and continuing education in the work of pastoral ministry. As our title suggests, we plan to give particular attention to the relationship between doctrine and life. Our faith should inform the practice of the Christian life, and that practice must, in turn, reinforce our doctrinal commitments.

The first volume has a great line up articles. Here is the table of contents:

This is a sentiment I’ve heard from many a non-Christian over the years. The truth is that Christians have their own lingo and their own vocabulary. Sometimes it can be alienating to folks. Sometimes it is quite hilarious–if we are honest enough to admit it (as in this video here).

But our lingo–our “Christianese” if you will–can sometimes be mistaken. Or at least partially so. It can attempt to express a theological truth that (sometimes) bring more confusion than clarity.

So, I am beginning a new blog series about the way we talk as Christians. This series is designed to analyze a number of theological phrases or practical bits of Christians wisdom that may simply be wrong, or at least misunderstood. Or maybe both.

Now to be clear, I will not be suggesting that the instances of Christianese we will be exploring in this series are necessarily wrong. Taken properly, they may be right in many ways. But, of course, that is precisely the issue. Often they are not taken properly. Instead they can be used to justify some questionable theological views.

So, the goal of the series–and this is important to get–is not to refute these phrases but to clarify, to nuance, and to balance out these phrases. In the world of theology, lack of nuance is one step (often a big step) towards doctrinal error.

Let me also say that the list below is by no means exhaustive. Nor is the list below intended to represent the worst or most inaccurate ways we speak as Christians. On the contrary, I (and all of us) have heard much worse!

But, these are phrases I hear quite a bit and think would be useful to address.

That said, I welcome suggestions from readers about other phrases I may have missed or that you think may make worthy additions to the series. Please just offer your suggestions in the comments below. If I get some good ideas, I will extend the series to address them.

So, here’s the forthcoming series as it currently stands (click on the links below to read more):

To those sitting in the pews, preaching can look relatively effortless–especially when it is done well. But do not be fooled. Preaching exhausts the body and the soul in ways that are incommensurate with its duration. I could work in the yard all day in 90 degrees of heat and (somehow) feel less exhausted than preaching two services.

But, it is not just the physical/spiritual toll that preaching takes. What makes it hard is the complexity of the task. Just standing up and talking for 30 minutes (and making any sense at all) is tough enough for most folks. But, on top of this, preachers have to navigate a complicated passage, balance sensitive doctrines, weave together a coherent message, apply the message to people’s lives, and do all of this in a manner that is compelling, engaging, winsome and never boring or dull.

No wonder James said, “Not many of you should become teachers” (Jas 3:1)!

Indeed, because of the complexities of preaching there are a number of pitfalls that all preachers (especially aspiring ones) risk falling into. I thought it might be helpful to highlight some of these possible pitfalls that I have noticed over the years:

I have to say the cover looks and feels great. Crossway did a fantastic job with the physical appearance of the book. And, I might add, they also did a great job editing the internal content of the book.

Of course, the first question everyone ask is, “Do we really need another New Testament introduction? What’s unique about this one?” On one level, there is nothing new about this one. After all, it seeks to do the same thing as all introductions, namely to help the reader to understand the background, historical setting, and theological themes of each New Testament book.

But on another level, there are some distinctive features about this new volume. I cover this question at length in the introduction, but here is a quick summary:

I am excited to announce that Canon Fodder has been revamped with a new look. When I started this site four years ago, I simply wanted a basic home page that would get the job done. And I think it has served its purpose.

But, like most things in life–whether our wardrobes, hairstyles, or color of our curtains–eventually an upgrade is needed.

The same basic features are available, but with a cleaner and more streamlined and updated appearance. The color scheme makes it easier to read, and the navigation is simplified.

The newest feature I will highlight is the new “Article Index” tab at the top right. This breaks down all my blog articles over the last four years into a couple dozen categories, ranging from biblical authority to culture/politics to Reformed theology.

Hopefully this new index will help people find exactly the content they are looking for.

Also, keep in mind that I continue to update all the content regularly. As new lectures or sermons are delivered, as new articles or books are written, or as new videos or interviews are recorded, I try to upload them here.

If you are interested in tracking my speaking engagements and activities, both past and present, you can get a little sample in the “News and Updates” column in the upper left corner.

And if you want to follow my blog more regularly, you can do so through a variety of channels in the upper right corner, from email list, feedburner, and of course Twitter and Facebook.

Evangelical Christians have been making the same point for so long, we are running out of ways to say it.

We’ve tried the following phrases/statements:

The intolerance of tolerance.

There is a lack of diversity in the push for diversity.

Those complaining the loudest about discrimination, are often the most discriminatory.

Liberals are not really liberals, but simply want one view.

Those pushing for all view to be treated fairly, are not treating all views fairly.

The supposed quest for equality, is really a quest to privilege a certain viewpoint.

And on and on we could go.

The basic point is this. In the modern liberal push for diversity there is one enormous category missing: intellectual/religious/ideological diversity.

All the while our liberal culture pats itself on the back for being so diverse–whether that diversity be racial, ethnic, or cultural–it continues to ignore the biggest area of potential diversity. Diversity of thinking.

After all, isn’t this what the public education should be doing? Shouldn’t it be exposing students to a variety of intellectual/ideological viewpoints? But that is precisely the thing modern universities do not do (or refuse to do).

It is well known that conservative thinkers make up a shockingly small percentage of major university faculties–and many of these faculties are funded by public tax dollars. A recent study, for example, showed less than 2% of English professors are Republicans.

WE progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.

Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

This lack of diversity is particularly evident in the field of biblical studies at major American universities. Go on a search for genuinely evangelical professors who hold a teaching post in biblical studies at a major public university and see what you find. They are an endangered species.

And the intellectual discrimination doesn’t just happen at the hiring level. It also happens at the Ph.D. level. Evangelicals have trouble getting hired at major universities because they first have difficulty being accepted into the Ph.D. programs of these major universities.

I have seen this up close and personal here at RTS. We had an extremely bright student a number of years ago apply to PhD programs in biblical studies at some of the major universities and divinity schools in America. He had exceptional academic credentials including prestigious undergraduate scholarships, academic awards, fantastic grades, and also a near perfect score on the GRE.

And how many of these major universities and divinity schools accepted him? Zero.

Of course, critics could always write off this single example as an irrelevant anomaly. It doesn’t prove anything, they might say. Maybe he was rejected for other reasons.

Even so, the state of our institutions of higher learning today are not in doubt. They are vastly, enormously, and seriously slanted towards a single ideological and intellectual viewpoint. That is undeniable.

The question isn’t whether it is true. The question is whether anyone cares, or whether anyone will do anything about it.

And if nothing is done about it, our universities (and our culture) will not be the better. Indeed, we will become what the liberals have always said they want to avoid. A totalitarian state that simply indoctrinates rather than educates.

If one accepts the dating of some modern scholars, the earliest canonical gospel–the Gospel of Mark–was not written until 70 AD or later.

This means there was a gap of time of about 40 years between the life of Jesus and our earliest Gospel that records his words and deeds.

What happened to the stories of Jesus during this period of time? Since such stories were largely passed down orally, can this process be trusted? Did Christians change the stories along the way? Is it reasonable to think that Christians could have even remembered the details accurately?

These are the questions raised in Jesus Before the Gospels, Bart Ehrman’s latest Easter-timed book attacking the reliability and historical integrity of the New Testament.

Prior installments in Ehrman’s “you can’t trust the Bible” series include Forged in 2011, Jesus, Interrupted in 2009, God’s Problem in 2007, and Misquoting Jesus in 2005.

Each of these books, though different in the specific topic, tells the same overall story: Ehrman, once an evangelical who attended Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, has now discovered, along with the consensus of modern scholarship, that the New Testament, and the Gospels in particular, do not provide a trustworthy account of the historical Jesus.

Instead, what we have (according to Ehrman) are books that are forgeries, contain contradictions, have morally-questionable teachings, and have been edited and changed throughout the centuries.

My full-length review of Ehrman’s new volume has just been published over at the Gospel Coalition website. See here.

In addition, you can listen to my hour-long interview about Ehrman’s book on the nationally-syndicated radio program, Stand to Reason with Greg Koukl. Download here.

One of the scariest aspects of pursuing a Ph.D. (aside from thesis defense) is the poor job prospects on the other side. After slogging through many years of intense research, late nights writing, spouse working, and no money, it is a bit discouraging to realize the job opportunities are few and far between.

Of course, I always warn my own students of this reality if they express interest in getting a Ph.D. It is a noble pursuit, but one that does not always translate into to steady, financially-viable employment.

So, whenever a Ph.D. student does get that rare job interview (and they are rare!) they will need to make the best of it.

Given that I have sat on both sides of the interview table–as both candidate looking for a post, and as President or Academic Dean looking to fill a post–I thought I might offer a few reflections on the interview process. In particular, I want to help candidates know what we are really looking for in a potential professor.

I say “really” because I think candidates often misunderstand what we are looking for. And, due to that misunderstanding, sometimes candidates are simply heading down an unhelpful path in the interview process.

And when I say “we” I am thinking particularly of those leaders in the world of evangelical seminaries. Those in university settings, or those who are not evangelical, are unlikely to offer the same advice.

So here are seven pieces of advice:

1. Don’t talk about only your dissertation. This is (by far!) the number one mistake in an interview. To be sure, we want to know about your dissertation, your field, and your research interests. But, don’t offer a 20 minute recap of an obscure point in chapter three of your thesis (yes, people do this).

I know that when a student has been working on one thing for 5 years it is difficult to talk about something else. But, that is precisely what we want to see. Can this person talk about, think about, and engage with, topics outside the micro-world of his dissertation research?

2. Don’t try to prove how smart you are. Having done many, many interviews, I get the impression that candidates are very worried about whether we think they are smart enough for the job. And this is understandable. The academic environment is an intimidating one, and candidates feel the need to prove themselves.

However, you should know that you wouldn’t have been given an interview if we didn’t already think you had the academic chops to pull it off. We can assess academic ability pretty quickly on a CV because we know about your program, your advisor, your publications, your undergraduate work, your masters work, your references, etc.

So, in many ways, we have already crossed that bridge.

This doesn’t mean that we aren’t continuing to evaluate academic ability (we are), but in the interview we are more often looking for other things (see below).

On top of this, too much self-promotion can come off negatively. Yes, interviews are about putting forth your abilities and credentials. But, this needs to be done carefully lest you become this guy.

3. Brush up on your systematic theology. This is the big one. You may be surprised to know that when we (at least here at RTS) look to a hire a professor we are very concerned about his understanding of systematic theology and his ability to articulate theological positions.

Unfortunately, many Ph.D. students have become a little rusty in systematics (their MDiv was a long time ago), or perhaps think it doesn’t matter (most Ph.D. programs don’t emphasize it).

But, it matters to us.

Additional note: the importance of systematics shows that the Ph.D. is not necessarily the most important degree you get. In many ways, your M.Div. is more important because of the foundational way it shapes your view of theology and ministry (which is what seminaries are concerned about).

4. Understand the institution that’s interviewing you. Whenever you interview with an institution, it is important to do a little homework in advance, lest you find yourself articulating (or emphasizing) positions contrary to the very institution you are hoping to get hired by.

This does not mean you should change your views to match the institution (you need to be honest about your views), but it does mean you should be wise about the way you speak.

I cannot tell you how many times I have been in an interview where the candidate decides to share his views on his favorite hobby horse topic, not at all aware that his views contradict the positions of our own institution!

Simply put, if you interview at a Reformed seminary (like RTS) you will not want to lead with how much you enjoyed this book.

5. Be ready to answer, not evade, hot button issues. If you are interviewing at a confessional seminary–i.e., a seminary that has a well-established doctrinal statement–then you can expect to be asked a variety of questions about how your views line up with that statement, and what your positions are about related hot-button topics (e.g., historical Adam, authority of Scripture).

Since Ph.D. students have been immersed in academic circles for a number of years, they tend to answer these questions in the same manner they would deal with scholarly debates. In the scholarly world it is very normal to express agnosticism over certain topics, or to straddle the fence between opposing positions, or to withhold judgment until more research can be done, etc.

Unfortunately, this sort of methodology doesn’t work the same when applied to a confessional situation where core doctrinal views are being discussed. It’s one thing to be agnostic over whether you date Mark’s Gospel to 50 A.D. or 70 A.D. (a scholarly debate) but its another thing to be agnostic about whether you believe in substitutionary atonement (a key confessional issue).

6. Show an interest in the church, not just the academy. This is a biggie. Seminaries are different than universities in precisely this way–there’s an ecclesiological/ministry dimension to what we do. So, we are not interested in hiring only scholars, but also people who have a love for the church. We are looking for pastor-scholars. We want to know about church involvement, denominational activity, engagement in preaching, etc.

This doesn’t mean all seminary professors have to be ordained pastors (though that is ideal). But it does mean that all seminary professors should have a love for, and interest in, the church.

7.Get to know those interviewing you. There are a lot of factors that go into a decision to hire someone. But, a major factor is just whether this individual is someone we would like to spend time with and get to know. In other words, there is a relational dimension to any interview process. So, make your interview more than about downloading data. Find a way to interact on a more personal level.

Now, I know this is complicated. Professors are not the most relational folks (on either side of the table). Nor do you want to come across as overly “chummy” in a formal interview situation. But, do your best to get to know those interviewing you on a personal level. Show that you could be an enjoyable and interesting part of the professorial team.

Needless to say, these seven things are only part of the equation. There are many more things that could be said. But, hopefully they can prove advantageous for those Ph.D. students who are in the job hunt for a seminary post.

And perhaps the final word is simply this. Ph.D. students, we are for you. We have a special place in our hearts for folks in this tricky stage of life. Whether our answer is yes or no in regard to the job, it is definitely yes in regard to your calling.

Since we live in a culture that is obsessed with gender identity and gender issues, it is not surprising to find Christianity on the receiving end of serious criticisms regarding its view of women.

Christianity–particularly if it embraces a complementarian theology–is viewed by many in our culture as oppressive and harmful to women. It does not provide, we are told, a friendly and welcoming environment where women can grow and thrive.

But, this is not just a problem for modern Christianity. The oppression of women, it is argued, was especially a problem in early Christianity. After all, in the first few centuries of the church, critics insist that the Christian culture was still very much a patriarchal one still beholden to the misogynistic views of the apostle Paul.

Leaving aside the questions about modern day Christianity, I want to ask whether these claims about early Christianity–particularly in the second century–are, in fact, true. Is it really the case that second-century Christianity was a hostile environment for women?

Well, if it was, apparently no one bothered to tell the women in the second century because they flocked to Christianity in droves.

It is well established that Christianity was extremely popular with women during this time period. Sociologist Rodney Stark estimates that perhaps 2/3 of the Christianity community during this time period were made up of women. This is the exact opposite of the ratio in the broader Greco-Roman world where women only made up about 1/3 of the population.

This means that women intentionally left the religious systems of the Greco-Roman world with which they were familiar and consciously decided to join the burgeoning Christian movement. No one forced them to do so. No one made them become Christians.

On the contrary, Christianity was a cultural pariah during this time period. It was an outsider movement in all sorts of ways–legal, social, religious, and political. Christians were widely despised, viewed with suspicion and scorn, and regarded as a threat to a stable society.

And yet, women, in great numbers, decided to join the early Christian movement anyway.

Women pop up all over the place in our earliest Christian sources. They are persecuted by the Roman government, they are hosting churches in their homes, they are caring for the poor and those in prison, they are traveling missionaries, they are wealthy patrons who support the church financially, and much much more.

Indeed, so popular was Christianity with women, that pagan critics of Christianity (Celsus, Lucian) mocked Christianity for being a religion of women.

Let that sink in for a moment. In the ancient world, Christianity was mocked for being too pro-women! That is a far cry from what one hears in cultural conversations today.

The reasons that Christianity provided such a favorable environment for women are not hard to discover. Early Christianity would have included opportunities for real ministry involvement (with honor and dignity), it condemned female infanticide (a practice which had greatly reduced female numbers in the pagan population), it spoke out against child brides (which was harmful to young girls), and it advocated for healthier marriages where divorce was condemned and use of prostitutes/concubines forbidden (which resulted in greater fertility in Christian couples).

All of this presents serious problems for those who claim early Christianity was oppressive to women. I suppose those who hold such a view could argue that all these women in the Greco-Roman world were so gullible and easily duped that they thought Christianity was great when (as all sophisticated people now know) it really wasn’t.

But, such an approach is, ironically, grossly patronizing and demeaning to women. It basically says that second-century women were too ignorant to have known what was good for them.

And even more than that, such an approach is guilty of the “arrogance of the modern.” It basically says only we in the modern day knows what is best and all prior generations were just too primitive to know any better.

A much better response–a response that honors the historical evidence–is to acknowledge that ancient Christianity provided a profoundly welcoming and healthy environment for women.

And if that was true back then, perhaps one might be willing to consider the possibility that it is true today.

GSA is when a mother and her biological son, or a father and his biological daughter, are in a sexual relationship.

I had never heard this term before, but I suppose it sounds better than the word that really describes such relationships: incest.

And now GSA people want to get married.

I saw an example of this in a recent article about a 51 year-old mother and her 32 year-old son who are in a sexual relationship. Here is the mother’s defense of her behavior:

She said: “This is not incest, it is GSA. We are like peas in a pod and meant to be together.

“I know people will say we’re disgusting, that we should be able to control our feelings, but when you’re hit by a love so consuming you are willing to give up everything for it, you have to fight for it.

What is incredible about all of this, is that this is precisely the same situation that same-sex marriage was in just a few years ago. It was deemed to be unnatural and unhealthy and now our culture has fully endorsed it.

Notice also that the woman above even used the same argument that is used to justify same-sex marriage, namely that they are in “love,” and are not “able to control our feelings.”

In other words, this behavior is not a choice, but is genetic. And who can deny us the opportunity to express our love?

Get ready for round two of the marriage wars. The move to justify incest will be next.

Of course, sadly this should come as no surprise. In many of my prior posts on our culture’s gender confusion (e.g., see here), I have pointed out what many others have also pointed out, namely that the culture’s quest to redefine marriage will not (and cannot) stop with same-sex marriage.

If a man and a man are allowed to marry, then what keeps us from denying most anyone (any combination of people) the right to marry?

Why not a mother and her biological son? Why not a father and his biological daughter? Why not a man and two men? Or a man and two women? Or a woman and two men?

There’s no logical reason–given the rationale used for same-sex marriage–why we should deny marriage to these other groups. To do so would simply be discriminatory (on modern definitions of the term). Why should they not be allowed to enjoy the blessings of marriage? Why should they not be allowed to marry those they love?

This simply highlights one of the most often missed points in the whole same-sex marriage debate. Advocates of same-sex marriage often claim, “Everyone else gets to marry the person they love, so why can’t we? That’s discrimination.”

But this sort of claim is monumentally misleading. The marriage laws of this country have never said people can marry whomever they love.

Same-sex marriage advocates make it seem as if they are singled out unjustly. But, that is not the case. There have always been restrictions on marriage such as age, gender, biological relationships, number of spouses, etc.

What same-sex marriage advocates want is for our country to remove just one of these restrictions, the one pertaining to gender. The problem is that the rationale for removing that restriction–people should be allowed to marry whom they love–can be equally used to remove all the restrictions.

No doubt there will be some who would be pleased with such a development. “Yes,” they might say, “let’s remove all restrictions on marriage.”

But, if marriage can simply be whatever a person wants to make it, then it is swallowed up in an ocean of subjectivity. If marriage is entirely self-constructed there can be no such thing as “marriage.”

Marriage becomes a chimera. An illusion.

And this is why Christians have been opposed to same-sex marriage from the start. We are opposed to it simply because it isn’t marriage. Indeed, we’ve been opposed to it because, in the end, it will not enhance marriage in our country but lead to its disappearance.

Seeing this review reminded me of one of the key debates in discussions of the emerging New Testament canon, namely whether Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in the early second century, knew the apostle John. This is a key question simply because Papias provides one of the earliest explicit references to the gospels of Mark and Matthew.

So, where did Papias get this information from? And can this information be trusted?

Bart Ehrman, in his latest volume Jesus Before the Gospels, says no. This information cannot be trusted. Why? Because, “Papias is not himself an eyewitness to Jesus’s life and does not know eyewitnesses” (112, emphasis mine).

But is Ehrman correct? Shanks makes the case in his book, a case that has been made by a number of other scholars before him (e.g., Robert Gundry) that in fact Papias got his information from the most reliable of sources, namely the apostle John himself.

And personally I find that case compelling. We cannot repeat all the details in a blog post, but here are some highlights:

(a) Irenaeus and the majority of other fragments about Papias affirm that Papias knew John the apostle (Shanks, 288-291). Irenaeus’ testimony is particularly weighty given that he is even earlier than Eusebius and plainly states that Papias was a “hearer of John” (Haer. 5.33.4).

(b) Despite Eusebius’ confident declaration that Papias didn’t know John the apostle (Hist. eccl. 3.39), in his earlier work the Chronicle he actually affirms that Papias knew John (Shanks, 111-113). Obviously, Eusebius’ view had changed between his publication of the Chronicle and his publication of Ecclesiastical History (something that was not unusual for Eusebius).

(c) Papias states plainly that he “learned from the elders” (Hist eccl. 3.39.3). A few sentences later, Papias describes the “words of the elders” as “What Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying” (Hist. eccl. 3.39.4). In other words, it seems that Papias uses the word “elders” to refer to the apostles.

(d) Eusebius admits that Papias learned directly from “the elder John” mentioned in the above quote. Although Eusebius thinks this is a John other than the apostle, it seems likely that he has misunderstood the words of Papias here. When Papias mentions the name John a second time in the statement above, it is best understood as a reference back to the apostle John due to the fact that both are called “elder” and the anophoric use of the article which points back to the prior John (Shanks, 19-21).

(e) Moreover, Eusebius’ idea of second “John” in Ephesus, one different from the apostle, is based on the faulty conclusions drawn by Dionysius of Alexandria, and fueled by his prejudice against Papias’ chiliastic eschatology.

(f) Papias was a colleague and contemporary of Polycarp. Since Polycarp knew John, it is quite likely that Papias would have as well.

Although not each of the above points are equally certain (or persuasive), they form a collectively weighty argument. An argument that suggests Papias got his information from John the apostle.

If so, then this is yet another reason to think that our canonical gospels were known by their traditional names by the end of the first century. And that is incredibly early testimony for the traditional authorship of the Gospels.

The next installment in our Where Are They Now? alumni series highlights a person who has done both of these. Tyler Dirks (class of 2007) was the RUF pastor at Johnson and Wales University and now is the church planting pastor for East Charlotte Presbyterian Church.

Here is his interview:

1. What are you currently doing?

I am the Senior Pastor at East Charlotte Presbyterian Church, and was formerly the RUF Pastor at Johnson and Wales University here in Charlotte.

2. Why did you originally come to RTS Charlotte?

I had heard good things about RTS from my campus minister at Kansas State University (the campus ministry is called Ichthus, and the minister’s name is John Schwartz), and my father’n law (Dr. Glenn Zaepfel who had taught for a time at the RTS Orlando campus). I married into the East Coast and I wanted to train for full-time Gospel ministry somewhere in, or near, the Carolinas. So… we scheduled a visit to RTS CLT. As I recall, we sat-in on Dr. Cara’s class (Acts-Romans if I’m not mistaken). Honestly, I don’t remember my impression of the content/material being taught, I simply didn’t want Dr. Cara to ask me a question to which I most likely would not have an answer to (Dr. Cara had cordially & candidly greeted us when our tour guide [Chad Grindstaff] dropped us off, and this uninhibited gesture of welcome made me rather nervous because Dr. Cara struck me as the kind of professor who wouldn’t be bashful about classroom interaction with an intimidated visitor 🙂

I think the most positive impression we had that day we first visited was being introduced to Dr. Kelly and Dr. Kruger. Chad marched us into both professor’s offices, and they immediately paused in the middle of whatever they were working on in order to greet us and chat for a bit. I thought, “These guys are probably in the middle of writing books, or saving the church from heresy …and here they are shooting the breeze with a lowly potential seminarian like me!?”

3. Is there one thing that you learned at RTS that has come back to you as you have ministered to others? A phrase, encouragement or advice?

Presuppositions (neutrality is a myth). What is the chief end of man? …to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. Robust friendships were forged in seminary with my classmates. Reading is something every human being should be doing A LOT.

4. What do you enjoy most about your current ministry?

Bible Study with fellow disciples …feeding on the Word of God together as a family of those who strive and fight to live by faith in the unseen riches that are ours in Christ.

5. What has been a struggle in your ministry?

Sincerely loving selves besides myself. Selfishness is HARD to destroy. Conquering insecurities is a task that only the Holy Spirit is able to accomplish. John 3:30.

6. If you could give any encouragement to a current student in seminary, what would it be?

Risks are not bad. Don’t be afraid to fail. Fix your eyes on Jesus, get out of the boat, keep your eyes on Jesus, don’t allow the worries of the world, or your reputation steal your attention – keep your eyes on Jesus. Be deliberate about moving toward people who you don’t naturally like. Get their story.

As many of you now know, our beloved Dr. Doug Kelly, Richard Jordan Professor of Theology, will be retiring May 31, 2016.

Although someone like Dr. Kelly can never really be “replaced,” a press release will be going out today announcing our excitement that D. Blair Smith, a RTS Charlotte grad, will be taking up that position in systematic theology.

Since Blair was a student of Dr. Kelly’s, and has specialized in the same field as Dr. Kelly (patristic theology), we cannot imagine a more fitting successor.

Blair earned a B.S. in Marketing Management and Social Studies from Bob Jones University, and a M.Div. from RTS Charlotte. He earned his Th.M. in Theology from Harvard Divinity School, where he wrote his thesis on “Athanasius’s Trinitarian Theology of Redemption, with Special Reference to the Holy Spirit.”

He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Historical Theology (Patristics) at Durham University in England under Professor Lewis Ayres, one of the world’s leading patristic scholars. During a portion of his doctoral studies, Blair has served as a Research Visitor at The University of Notre Dame. The working title of his dissertation is “The Fatherhood of God in Fourth-Century Pro-Nicene Trinitarian Theology.””

The retiring Dr. Doug Kelly commented on Blair’s appointment, “I am thrilled that my successor in the chair of Systematic Theology is Blair Smith! He is thoroughly committed to the inerrancy of Scripture, and to the principles of the Reformed Faith, especially as expressed in the Westminster Standards. Blair will combine in his teaching and preaching a high view of Scripture with illumination from the Church Fathers, Reformers and Puritans. It is a great joy for me, as I retire, to leave this solemn task in Blair’s hands.”

Blair is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and served for more than seven years as the Pastor of Adult Education at Fourth Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, MD. Currently he is the Associate Pastor at Michiana Covenant Presbyterian Church near South Bend, IN, where he regularly teaches and preaches. Blair is married to his wife, Lisa, and they have 4 children: Eleanor, Douglas, Lucile, and Graham.

We are very excited that Blair will be joining our faculty starting June 1st.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Dr. Russell Moore of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention recently spoke at RTS Charlotte for the annual Harold O.J. Brown Lectures.

He gave two lectures, the first on pro-life ministry and the second on adoption ministry. This was followed by an extended (and very interesting) Q&A time.

We have already seen a tremendous outpouring of support and interest in the new program, and a number of our alumni are even coming back to take advantage of the new MACC degree.

Our program has assembled some of the finest faculty in biblical counseling today, as we have drawn upon leading figures all over the country. Visiting professors have included David Powlison, Ed Welch, Rod Mays, Heath Lambert, Deepak Reju, Todd Stryd, Tim Lane, Jeff Forrey, and others.

But, even in the midst of this fine collection of professors, we had not been able to find the full-time person to lead the program.

Until now.

Today a press release will go out announcing that Dr. Jim Newheiser will be the new Director of the Christian Counseling Program at RTS Charlotte, as well as Associate Professor of Christian Counseling and Practical Theology (starting June 1st).

Jim is a board member of both the Biblical Counseling Coalition (BCC) and the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors (ACBC).

He is the author of a number of books and articles, including Parenting is More than a Formula (P&R, 2015); When Good Kids Make Bad Choices, with Elyse Fitzpatrick (Harvest House, 2005); You Never Stop Being a Parent, with Elyse Fitzpatrick (P&R, 2010); and a chapter contributor (with Rod Mays) in Biblical Counseling and the Church, ed. Bob Kellemen (Zondervan, 2015).

David Powlison, executive director of CCEF, commented on Dr. Newheiser’s appointment, “I was very glad to hear that Jim Newheiser has accepted the call to come to RTS Charlotte in biblical counseling. He brings wide experience, abiding fidelity to Scripture, and a humble heart.”

For the past 25 years, Jim has served as the Preaching Pastor at Grace Bible Church in Escondido, California. He is also the Director of the Institute for Biblical Counseling and Discipleship (formerly CCEF West) and an Adjunct Professor of Biblical Counseling at The Master’s College.

Jim will oversee all the counseling degree options, including the 66 credit-hour MA in Christian Counseling (MACC). A distinctive feature of this degree is that it requires, in addition to counseling courses, a significant number of courses in biblical studies, systematic theology and apologetics. This well-rounded curriculum allows students to engage the counseling task on the solid foundation of a Scriptural worldview.

The counseling program also includes an MDiv and MACC dual degree, an MATS/BS and MACC dual degree, and an MDiv with a counseling emphasis.

On a personal note, I am particularly excited about Jim because he is a personal friend whom I have known for more than 20 years. I look forward to how God will bless his new ministry here at RTS Charlotte.

Just the name of that church conjures up all sorts of images in our mind. It was a church that was tepid, bored, and apathetic–overconfident in their own spiritual condition. In short, they were lukewarm.

And, as we all know, Jesus told them plainly, “Because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth” (Rev 3:16).

Spiritually speaking, the Laodicean church could be summarized in a single word that (unfortunately) captures the ethos of our modern culture: “Whatever.”

The problem, of course, with being apathetic is that you can actually be apathetic about your apathy! Put simply an apathetic church does not think it is that big of deal. But, here are some reasons apathy is a bigger deal than we think:

1. Apathy towards Christ can be more dangerous than enmity towards Him. The fundamental reason people miss the problem of apathy is because they assume its better than being an enemy of God. It’s halfway to being committed, they think, and thus better than being against God. It’s a step in the right direction.

But, Jesus disagrees. For him, apathy (at least in some ways) is worse than enmity towards God. “Would that you were either cold or hot!” (3:15).

It is actually the “whatever” type of person sitting in the pew that is hardest to reach. Why? Because they say to themselves, “I need nothing” (3:17).

As the author George MacDonald once said: “Complaint against God is far nearer to God than indifference about Him.”

2. Apathy towards Christ is the religion of our age. Another factor that makes an apathetic church a problem is that it feeds our culture’s perception that religion is best in moderation. Ironically, while Jesus says apathy is the worst spiritual condition, our culture contends that it is the best!

For the most part, mainline churches in modern America are actually aiming for the middle ground. They want enough religion to be respectable, but to not so much that they are viewed as zealots.

Parents tell their children that they shouldn’t be atheists, but, at the same time, they tell them not to take this religious thing too far. Lukewarm religion is actually the goal.

In a culture like this, the last thing the evangelical church needs to do is to feed this misunderstanding. This is why John Stott thinks that the letter to Laodicea may be one of the most important for the modern church:

Perhaps none of the seven letters is more appropriate to the twentieth century church than this. It describes vividly the respectable, sentimental, nominal, skin-deep religiosity which is so widespread among us today. Our Christianity is flabby and anemic, we appear to have taken a lukewarm bath.

3. Apathy towards Christ is out of sync with his worthiness. The core problem with Christian apathy, the thing that makes it so serious, is the thing we are apathetic about, namely the person of Christ.

There is an enormous disparity between the glory, wonder, and beauty of Christ and our bored, tepid, “whatever” sort of response to him. And it is this sizable gap between what Christ is worth and our lackluster reaction to him that makes apathy such a problem.

And that sort of gap raises serious questions about a person’s spiritual health and vitality.

For example, if someone found themselves at a middle school art fair, it would be fairly understandable if they found themselves bored and unimpressed with the quality of the art.

But, if that same individual stood in the Sistine Chapel and looked up at the wondrous work of Michelangelo and was still bored, then there would be something seriously wrong with them.

Simply put, apathy is a problem because it misses the whole point of Christianity: the greatness of Christ.

In the end, these three factors remind us that apathy is a bigger problem than we think. So what can be done about it?

Christ himself gives the answer in his letter to Laodicea: “I counsel you to buy from me” (3:18). A renewed vision of the beauty and greatness of Christ is always the ultimate cure for apathy.

And Christ invites his people to experience him afresh: “Behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me” (3:20).

In this verse Christ is drawing on the Song of Solomon, presenting himself as the groom and his church as the bride. And he is asking his church to fall in love with him all over again.

Lecture one (11AM) will be on the topic of “Pro-Life Ministry in the Local Church.” Lecture two (1PM), will be on the topic of “Adoption Ministry in the Local Church.” There will be a catered lunch in between the two lectures.

Russell Moore serves as the eighth president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the southern Baptist Convention, the moral and public policy agency of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination. A widely-sought cultural commentator, Dr. Moore has been recognized by a number of influential organizations. The Wall Street Journal has called him “vigorous, cheerful and fiercely articulate” while The Gospel Coalition has referred to him as “one of the most astute ethicists in contemporary evangelicalism.”

An ethicist and theologian by background, Dr. Moore is also an ordained Southern Baptist minister and the author of several books including Onward: Engaging the Culture without Losing the Gospel. He blogs frequently at his website, russellmoore.com, and hosts a program called Questions & Ethics—a wide-ranging podcast addressing listener-generated questions on the difficult moral and ethical issues of the day. A native Mississippian, he and his wife Maria are the parents of five sons.

As for the background to the lecture series, Dr. Harold O.J. Brown served as John R. Richardson Professor of Theology and Philosophy at the Charlotte campus of Reformed Theological Seminary from 1998 to 2007. Dr. Brown was a leading evangelical voice in the pro-life movement immediately after Roe v. Wade, co-founding the Christian Action Council (now Care Net) with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.

Dr. Brown was a distinguished evangelical scholar during his professional life, writing books, essays and articles in the areas of culture, science, theology and politics. His books include: The Protest of a Troubled Protestant (1969), Christianity and the Class Struggle (1970), Death Before Birth (1977), The Reconstruction of the Republic (1977), Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present (1984), and Sensate Culture (1996).

Dr. Brown was much beloved by his colleagues and students at RTS who honor the memory of their dear friend with an annual lecture series at RTS-Charlotte.

If you are in the area, I hope you can come out for the lectures! You can register here.

And I can’t imagine two books about Jesus more different from one another.

Not surprisingly, in his new volume (released again right before Easter!) Ehrman continues his life-long campaign to attack the reliability of the canonical gospels and to raise doubts about their authorship and origins. Time and time again he asserts that the gospels were late, anonymous productions, written by authors with no connections to the historical Jesus. I will be offer a full review of Ehrman’s book at a later point.

In contrast to Ehrman, Pitre’s book is a breath of fresh air. The goal of his book is to defend the notion that Jesus claimed to be God. And he accomplishes this goal by laying a strong foundation for the reliability and trustworthiness of the Gospels as eyewitness sources for the life of Jesus.

Pitre tackles the authorship of the canonical gospels by making two simple observations: (a) The Gospel titles support the traditional authorship of the canonical gospels, and (b) the testimony of the church fathers supports the traditional authorship of the canonical gospels.

These are not new observations, but Pitre presents them in a manner that reminds the reader how important (and compelling) they are.

As for the titles, Pitre points out the obvious (but for Ehrman, problematic) fact that “there is a striking absence of any anonymous Gospel manuscripts. That is because they don’t exist. Not even one” (17). On the contrary, our earliest gospel manuscripts contain the titles that attribute these books to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Moreover, if the Gospels had circulated anonymously for more than a century (as Ehrman argues), then we would expect them to have a variety of different titles. Surely, we couldn’t expect them to circulate anonymously for this length of time and then suddenly all early Christians use precisely the same title.

Pitre comments on Erhman’s suggestion the titles were added later:

This scenario is completely incredible. Even if one anonymous Gospel could have been written and circulated and then somehow miraculously attributed to the same person by Christians living in Rome, Africa, Italy, and Syria, am I really supposed to believe that the same thing happened not once, not twice, but with four different books, over and over again, throughout the world? (19)

And, when it comes to the testimony of the early church fathers, the same type of consistent testimony emerges. Pitre writes:

When the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament are taken into account, there is not the slightest trace of external evidence to support the now popular claim that the four Gospels were originally anonymous. As far as we know, for almost four hundred years after the lifetime of Jesus, no one–orthodox or heretic, pagan or Christian–seems to have raised any serious doubts about who wrote the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (53).

In sum, Pitre provides a wonderful contrast to Ehrman and highlights the reasons that Christians for thousands of years have always understood these gospels to have been written by the names attached to them.

I have a few minor quibbles with Pitre here and there (at one point, p.18, he seems to confuse P52 and P66), but he has written a very helpful book that is accessible to a lay audience interested in these critical questions.

I encourage you to read the book and then give it to your skeptical friend.

Well, the political season is upon us again. And it’s time for all sorts of Christian stock phrases about politics to be used and reused. One of my favorite is the phrase, “Jesus is neither a Democrat nor a Republican.” This is one of those phrases that is used so frequently that no one really bothers to ask what it means; nor does anyone bother to ask whether it is really true. But, I want to take a moment to analyze this phrase as we head into this political season. What does it really mean? Here are some possibilities:

1. The phrase could simply mean that the Bible doesn’t speak to politics.

I suppose one possible interpretation of this phrase is that it means that the Bible doesn’t address political issues; it is simply silent on this matter. The Bible is only interested in redemptive issues and theological issues and should not be made to determine which political views are right. But, is that an accurate portrayal of the Bible? Sure, we can agree that the Bible doesn’t use the terms “Democrat” or “Republican,” nor does it make statements like “you should vote for the political party that….” But, that doesn’t mean the Bible provides no principles or guidance on how to evaluate a political party. Indeed, as Van Til once said, “The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication.”[1]

Thus, there is no reason to think the Bible cannot address political issues. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to suggesting the Bible cannot address the question of evolution because “it is not a science book” (to use another cliché). The problem with such an argument is that it only allows the Bible to speak to so-called “religious” issues and not “secular” ones. However, the Bible itself does not honor this religious-secular distinction—all the world is God’s and he has a say over everything in it. Moreover, almost every political issue has an ethical dimension to it. And surely the Bible speaks to ethics. Thus, we cannot say that political issues are “off the table” when it comes to what the Bible teaches.

2. The phrase could simply mean that neither political party lines up entirely with what the Bible teaches.

Another interpretation of this phrase is that it is simply another way of saying that neither party is perfect; both have their problems. Ok. But surely no one would dispute this. No human institution is perfect this side of the Fall (including the church!). To state such a thing doesn’t really advance the discussion—it is simply stating a truism.

Even if both parties are flawed to some degree, the real question still remains, namely which political party is the closest to the principles and ethics laid out in Scripture? After all, at the end of the day, the Christian still has to go to the polls and vote for someone. And surely he wants to vote for the party that is closest to the teachings of Scripture.

My suspicion therefore, is that this phrase is not being used just to say that both parties are flawed; rather it is really being used to say that both parties are equally flawed. And if both parties are equally flawed then someone can claim that it doesn’t really matter how we vote. Everyone is off the hook and political debating (at least on a biblical basis) should just stop. But, if someone is going to make such a claim then they have to do the heavy exegetical lifting to prove their case. A cliché is not enough to demonstrate that both political parties are equally flawed.

Moreover, I think the claim that both parties are equally flawed is highly problematic when one considers that Democrats and Republicans have near opposite political platforms on almost every major issue. Is it really likely that there would be two parties with nearly opposite values and ethical positions and, at the same time, neither would be closer to the teachings of Scripture? I suppose it is possible. But, is also very unlikely.

3. The phrase could simply mean that there are good Christians who are both Democrats and Republicans.

I suppose one could interpret the phrase “Jesus is neither a Democrat nor a Republican” as just another way of saying that there are Christians, good Christians, who are Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, the argument goes, there is no right or wrong way to vote. But, once again, I am not sure how this particular understanding constitutes a coherent position. The fact that there are Christians who have differing positions on an issue does not mean the Scripture supports both positions equally (which would be contradictory if you think about it), nor does it mean the Scriptures are necessarily unclear about the issue. After all, there are “good Christians” who are Arminians, and there are “good Christians” who are Calvinists. But, this does not constitute grounds for saying they are both right, or that it doesn’t matter, or that one cannot know such things. That type of attitude is more due to the influence of postmodernity—where there is no one right view—than it is due to historic and biblical Christianity.

The fact that there are Christians in a political party different from our own certainly means we should show them charity, love, and respect—after all they are brothers and sisters in Christ! But, it does not therefore mean we throw our hands up in the air and say that politics doesn’t matter or that the Bible has nothing to say about such things.

4. This phrase could simply mean that Jesus would never join a political party or that he would never have allegiance to a political party.

This particular understanding of the phrase is designed to do away with the notion that God is “for” one political party and “against” another. No political party can be regarded as God’s party. Thus, we can vote for whomever we want as Christians because God does not wear a lapel pin of a donkey or an elephant.

Now, some of this is certainly true. God does not align himself with man-made political parties in the sense that he endorses everything about them. And the reason he cannot endorse everything about a particular party is because no party is perfect. They are all flawed to one degree or another. But, this just brings us back to the issues we raised in #2 above. Just because both parties are flawed does not mean that both parties are equally flawed. Still remaining is the important task of determining which party is closest to the ethics, principles and values of Scripture.

So, just because God does not (and cannot) unequivocally endorse either party is not the same thing as saying that it doesn’t matter which party we vote for. Some parties are more pleasing to God than others.

So, where does this whole discussion leave us? We have been discussing what is possibly meant by the phrase “Jesus is neither Democrat nor Republican.” The four options above are not exhaustive—I suppose there are other options about what this phrase might mean. But, at least as it pertains to the options discussed here, I would argue that this phrase is highly problematic. Each of the possible meanings above suffers from the same fatal flaw: all of them are trying to find a way to make politics a neutral affair for Christians. Whether it’s the argument that the Bible doesn’t address politics (option #1), or that political parties are equally flawed (option #2), or that good Christians disagree (option #3), or that God cannot fully endorse a particular party (#4), all these arguments are trying to say it doesn’t matter what political views Christians support.

But, as I have argued above, this is a shockingly unchristian approach. It is almost suggesting there is a place in the world (even an ethical place!) where God has no concern about the direction we take. This stands in sharp contrast to the historical (and Reformed) Christian position outlined by Abraham Kuyper: “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existenceover which Christ, who is Sovereign over all,does not cry: ‘Mine!'”

One wonders how the “Jesus is neither a Democrat nor Republican” approach would have worked for Dietrich Bonhoeffer as he navigated the frightening political landscape of Germany in the 1930’s or 1940’s. Would he have been compelled by the idea that the Scripture was neutral about whether Christians should vote for Hitler’s socialist party? The sad truth is that many Christians and many churches in that day went along with Hitler’s politics and offered no protest. Bonhoeffer disagreed and argued that it was the Christian’s duty to oppose the National Socialist party. I doubt Bonhoeffer would have been persuaded by the argument that “good Christians are on both sides of this issue.”

So, if the “Jesus is neither a Democrat nor a Republican” approach is flawed, where do we go from here? I would suggest a different course of action. Rather than spending our energies trying to keep the Bible out of politics, we should work to let it back in. What I mean by this is that we need to stop telling Christians that whatever voting choice they make is as equally valid as another, and instead we should encourage them to apply Scripture to these political questions just like we apply it to every other area of life (whether it be economics, art, or medicine).

No doubt this will create debate and disagreement about whether Democrats are closer to biblical principles or whether Republicans are closer to biblical principles (or whether another party is closer!). But that’s Ok. Christians debate Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Credo-Baptism vs. paedo-Baptism, home school vs. public school education, and beyond. A vigorous, deep, and thorough debate about what the Bible teaches about politics would be a refreshing change from the postmodern “no political position is better than any other” approach currently en vogue in the modern church. At least then the focus is in the right place: what the Bible teaches.

A number of my recent posts (e.g., see here) have been dealing with Walter Bauer’s 1934 book Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity which insists that Christianity was wildly diverse in the earliest centuries and that the heretics outnumbered the orthodox. It was not until the 3rd and 4th centuries, it is argued, that the orthodox began to turn the tide.

But let’s test this theory by asking a simple question: who were the bishops in second-century Christianity? If heresy was as widespread as orthodoxy, we should expect to find a number of bishops that are openly Marcionite, Ebionite, Gnostic, and beyond.

The problem for Bauer’s thesis is that this is precisely what we don’t find.

When we examine bishops from the second century we find a litany that fit nicely within the orthodox camp: Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Papias, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, Anecitus of Rome, Polycrates of Ephesus, Victor of Rome, Demetrius of Alexandria, Melito of Sardis, Theophilus of Caesarea, and Dionysius of Corinth.

While these leaders certainly did not agree on everything, it is evident from their writings, or from historical reports about them, that there are no reasons to identify them with heterodox groups like the Marcionites, Gnostics, or Ebionites.

What is particularly noteworthy about the above list is that they represent a wide geographical range: Lyons (Gaul), Smyrna, Antioch, Hierapolis, Rome, Sardis, Ephesus, and Corinth. In other words, these orthodox leaders were not cordoned off into some small outpost of early Christianity.

It might be objected that orthodox bishops were forced into these geographical locales by higher ecclesiastical powers bent on imposing their agenda on others. The problem with this suggestion is that there were no “higher ecclesiastical powers” during this time period. There was not an ecclesiastical structure that allowed churches in one city to dictate the leadership of churches in another city.

It should also not be forgotten that, in this earliest phase, it was common for leaders to be elected by their local congregations (e.g., Did. 15.1; 1 Clem. 44.3). Thus, we have every reason to think that these many bishops, and the beliefs that they held, are a reasonably accurate representation of the Christian constituencies they served.

When we turn to heterodox groups in the second century, there are certainly many examples of their leaders (e.g., Menander, Saturninus, Cerdo, Basilides, Cerinthus). But, what is lacking is evidence that they held the office of bishop in the various locales in which they were active.

There is no explicit mention, at least in the second century, of any identifiable Gnostic, Marcionite, or Ebionite holding the office of bishop. Or, at least, I haven’t found one (please let me know if I have missed an example).

We do have indications that Valentinus may have been considered for the office of bishop of Rome, but the legitimacy of this report is seriously questioned. Irenaeus rebukes the presbyter (not bishop) Florinus for embracing the “Valentinian error” (Hist. eccl. 5.20.1), but it is evident that this was a new development—Florinus actually started out as an orthodox disciple of Polycarp.

Or, perhaps we might think of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome who barely crosses over into the second century (c.199-217), whom Hippolytus accused of modalism (Ref. 9.2). But, the modalism issue was much more narrow. Zephyrinus was certainly no Ebionite, Gnostic, or Marcionite. Regardless, even if we grant the instance of Zephyrinus, it is the exception that proves the rule.

When the dust settles on these sorts of discussions, the bare and (for Bauer) problematic reality remains: heretics didn’t seem very successful in winning over most congregations in the second century. Put differently, there is little evidence that they were in the majority.

Once again, despite all the buzz about diversity in early Christianity, we have no reason to doubt that the mainstream church during this time period was still one that could be generally identified as “orthodox.”

I am very excited to announce that in fall, 2016, RTS Charlotte will launch the new Center for Church Planting. The new center will include a MDiv emphasis in church planting along with a host of other types of specialized training for church planters.

In many ways, this new center is driven by what God is already doing in the city of Charlotte and among our alumni. The city has had a boom of new church plants over the last decade, many of which are being led by our own grads. Thus, the new center is really a response to the fact that Charlotte is naturally becoming a church planting hub.

Here is the full press release that went out today:

Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC is pleased to announce that it will launch The Center for Church Planting (CCP) in fall, 2016.

The purpose of the CCP is to become a national and international resource for the planting of Reformed churches committed to the authority of Scripture, the centrality of preaching, and the great commission. It will specialize in training future pastors for the unique challenges, complexities, and opportunities that church planters face.

The CCP will offer a Master of Divinity emphasis in church planting, specialized internships, mentoring by seasoned church planters, and generous scholarship support. In addition, students will participate in the church planters fellowship, annual conferences and lectures, and enjoy unique networking opportunities in the Carolinas and beyond.

RTS Charlotte President, Dr. Michael J. Kruger, commented on the new center, “We are so pleased to see how God has opened the doors for the new Center for Church Planting here in Charlotte. We believe that the great commission moves forward most effectively through the planting of new churches. And we want those churches to be planted by pastors who love Reformed theology, believe in the power of preaching, and have a heart for the lost.”

The city of Charlotte provides the ideal environment for the new CCP. With a population of 1.8 million in the metropolitan area, a world class business and professional community, a vibrant and growing urban center, a rich cultural heritage, and a diverse mix of people groups in need of the gospel, Charlotte provides future church planters with endless opportunities for ministry.

In addition, Charlotte is already a city with a rich history of church planting. The number of Reformed churches has grown exponentially over the last decade, providing a variety of opportunities for church planting internships and for mentoring relationships with seasoned church planters.

Harry Reeder, Senior Pastor of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, AL, expressed his excitement about the new center, “There is a desperate need for Gospel healthy churches which display the majesty of the triune God of glory and grace. Such churches are delivered by the sovereign Hand of God through Gospel saturated church planters. This is why I am grateful for the Center for Church Planting at RTS Charlotte and the privilege to both benefit from it as well as support it.”

The director of the CCP will be Dr. Tom Hawkes, senior pastor of Uptown Church (PCA) and Visiting Lecturer of Practical Theology at RTS Charlotte. Tom planted Uptown Church in the heart of Charlotte over 21 years ago, out of which five additional churches have been planted. The assistant director will be Dean Faulkner, a Visiting Lecturer of Practical Theology at RTS Charlotte and a seasoned church planter who has trained many young pastors and church planters in the PCA. Dean is finishing his Doctor of Ministry degree at RTS Charlotte.

The RTS Charlotte campus has become a national and international training ground for pastors, missionaries, educators, and leaders in the church. It has a beautiful 17 acre campus, ten full-time resident faculty members, a library of 60,000 volumes, and hundreds of alumni serving Christ all over the globe. RTS Charlotte offers the Master of Divinity degree, the Master of Arts degree (in Christian Counseling, Biblical Studies, and Theological Studies), and the Doctor of Ministry degree. It also hosts the Institute for Reformed Campus Ministry designed to provide additional training for students who plan to minister in a university environment.

Those interested in learning more about the RTS Charlotte campus can go here.

One of the most exciting programs over the last few years at RTS Charlotte is the Institute for Reformed Campus Ministry (IRCM). The IRCM is designed to equip our students for the challenges that are unique to campus ministry–and there are many. The college campus is one of the most critical battle grounds in our world today, and we are please to play a role in sending well-trained men and women to labor there.

The IRCM involves a specialized degree emphasis in campus ministry, as well as the IRCM Fellowship (a community of folks headed to campus ministry), IRCM events and lunches, and more. You can read more about it here.

While the IRCM serves a number of different campus ministries, it is no surprise that Reformed University Fellowship has become one of our biggest constituencies. Many RTS Charlotte alumni have become RUF pastors or staff over the years, and we look forward to that trend continuing in the future.

For that reason, I am pleased that this installment of the Where Are They Now? alumni series is focused on Chris Horne, class of 2012 and RUF pastor at ASU in Boone, NC. For other installments in the series, see here.

1. What are you currently doing?

I am the Reformed University Fellowship (RUF) campus minister at Appalachian State University in Boone, NC.

2. Why did you originally come to RTS Charlotte?

I struggled with whether ministry and seminary were for me after interning with RUF after college. My wife was the one who really encouraged me that God was calling us to it. We chose RTS because it had a solid reputation, we knew several alums who recommended it and there was a generous scholarship for those who had worked with RUF. It really wasn’t a difficult decision for us.

3. Is there one thing that you learned at RTS that has come back to you as you have ministered to others? A phrase, encouragement or advice?

Most of the phrases that come to mind are from Dr. Bob Cara. “We want to be as balanced as the Bible is balanced” is one that has really stuck with me. RTS really stressed that everything we do in ministry is based on God’s revelation in scripture and in the person & work of Jesus. Those two realities undergird all of life. Also, Dr Kelly smiling as he told us how beautiful Jesus is.

4. What do you enjoy most about your current ministry?

Watching God work in the hearts of students. The four years of college are some of the most formative in a person’s life and I get a front row seat for what God is doing. Bringing the spiritually dead to life. Healing wounds from family, abuse and personal sin. Strengthening students to love God and His church. Sending them out into the world to serve. I get to see the Holy Spirit do miracles every day.

5. What has been a struggle in your ministry?

Losing perspective. Day in and day out can feel like sitting under a fluorescent light in a library basement (probably because that’s what I’m doing right now) as you wade through peoples’ lives and struggle to balance devotion to Jesus, family and students. The good news is that God is at work regardless of how I feel at the moment.

6. If you could give any encouragement to a current student in seminary, what would it be?

God cares deeply about the ministry of preparation you are currently in. He will bring fruit from it. Enjoy what you are studying. The living God is the subject! Love your local church and fight for opportunities to serve there. Don’t take yourself so seriously.

The issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage just won’t go away these days. Thus, Christians need to make sure they are well-equipped to meet the challenges of the post-Christian world we find ourselves in.

Don Fortson is the Professor of Church History here at RTS Charlotte, and Rollin Grams is professor of New Testament at Gordon Conwell.

What makes this book unique is simple. This book responds to those who claim homosexuality is compatible with Christianity by considering both the evidence from church history and the evidence from the Bible.

In other words, it considers not only what the Bible says, but what Christians have said the Bible says throughout the ages. I know of no other recent volume that does this.

And I can tell you, the result is absolutely devastating for the claim that Christianity and homosexuality go together. A person might be able to convince themselves that the Bible allows it (by reinterpreting even the plainest of passages), but it is a bit hard to explain away 2000 years of absolutely consistent church history.

And that is exactly what we find in the historical record. From the very beginning of the church, all the way to the modern day, Christians have uniformly declared homosexuality to be incompatible with the Christian faith.

This consistency is particularly noteworthy in the earliest centuries because the church was quite diverse and represented a variety of cultures, ethnicities, and pagan backgrounds. Yet, with one voice, the church was unified it its opposition to homosexual behavior.

In essence, this forces the pro-homosexuality camp to argue that only in the modern day, really only in the last few years, have Christians, for the first time, finally understood what the Bible really teaches about homosexuality. And, every other Christian generation, for two-thousand years, has been bigoted, discriminatory, and oppressive.

The arrogance and audacity of a claim is stunning. But, that is precisely what the pro-homosexual camp is forced to believe.

Of course, some who are committed to the superiority of the modern will no doubt respond by saying, “Just because the church believes something doesn’t make it right.” True. But, the key issue in this case is that the church believes something that is also clearly the plain teaching of Scripture. Thus, we have both the testimony of Scripture and the church on the same side.

And if the Bible and the history of the church both seem to be saying the same thing, then that is a compelling reason to think it is true.

For those who are intellectually honest, this just becomes too much to bear. After reading Fortson’s and Rollin’s book, they may not agree with what Christians have always believed. But, they would have to admit that Christians have always believed it.

One of the most common objections to Christianity is that the divinity of Jesus was “created” by later Christians long after the first century. No one in primitive Christianity believed Jesus was divine, we are told. He was just a man and it was later believers, at the council of Nicea, that declared him to be a God.

A classic example of this in popular literature can be found in the book The Da Vinci Code:

“My dear,” Teabing declared, “until that moment in history [council of Nicea], Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet… a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal.” “Not the Son of God?” “Right,” Teabing said. “Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God” was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.” “Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?” “A relatively close vote at that,” Teabing added.

Of course, there have been more sophisticated objections to the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus. Bart Ehrman’s book, How Jesus Became God, argues that “It will become clear in the following chapters that Jesus was not originally considered to be God in any sense at all” (44).

Needless to say, there have been many responses to this claim by Ehrman (and The Da Vinci Code). A good place to start is the rebuttal volume to Ehrman, How God Became Jesus. And you can see my review of Ehrman’s book here.

But, it would still be helpful to revisit the question about when Christians began to conceive of Jesus as God. Was this belief “originally” (Ehrman’s word) part of early Christianity?

There are many ways to approach this question, but for the purposes of this short post, we will simply consider the teachings of the apostle Paul on this question. Why start with Paul? Larry Hurtado explains it best: “Pauline Christianity is the earliest form of the Christian movement to which we have direct access from undisputed firsthand sources” (Lord Jesus Christ, 85).

As we shall see, Paul didn’t simply believe Jesus was God in some marginal, semi-divine sort of way. Rather he viewed him as the one God of Israel, the pre-existent creator of the universe.

Let us consider just two examples that show that the highest of Christologies was present in our earliest sources. First, consider Paul’s language in 1 Cor 8:5-6:

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

At heart of this statement—given in the context of food offered to idols—is Paul’s concern to uphold monotheism. There is only one God who is worthy to receive cultic worship, as opposed to the many false gods present in pagan worship.

Indeed, it is widely recognized that Paul is clearly drawing upon the core monotheistic confession of ancient Israel, the “shema” of Deut 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is One.”

What is noteworthy, however, is that Paul has now included the Lord Jesus Christ within the shema, even using the same word (“Lord”) to describe him. Paul is not adding Jesus to the godhead, as if there were now two gods, but rather he is including Jesus in the divine identity of Yahweh.

This is confirmed by the fact that Paul attributes to Jesus the very same act of creation that he attributes to God: “through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” Jesus is not the recipient of a creative act, but the one who performs the creative act.

Thus, Bauckham concludes, “A higher Christology than Paul already expresses in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is scarcely possible, and…[is] the common character of all New Testament Christology” (2008:30).

The other passage, not surprisingly, is Phil 2:6-11, one of the clearest and most profound declarations that Jesus is Lord over all. Not only does Paul affirm the pre-existence and incarnation of Jesus—“though in the form of God…made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men”—but he describes the highest possible exaltation of Jesus: “So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

This latter phrase draws explicitly on Is 45:23, where, in the original context, Yahweh declares, “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.” Paul takes the glory due to Yahweh alone and applies it to Jesus—showing that he considers the latter as fully part of the divine identity.

Thus, Hurtado has observed that when Phil 2:6-11 is viewed as a whole it describes the work of Christ in a “narrative sequence,” starting with his pre-existence, moving to his incarnation, then to his humiliation, and finally to his exaltation (Hurtado, 2003:123).

What is particularly noteworthy about both of these passages is that scholars have argued that each of them reflect even earlier Christian tradition that significantly predates Paul’s own letters. In the case of Phil 2:6-11, it is widely regarded as an earlier Christological “hymn” that Paul adapted for use within this particular letter. Likewise, 1 Cor 8:6 is considered to be one of the earliest creedal statements within the Pauline corpus.

Thus, not only do these passages show that the apostle Paul himself had a high Christology, but that this high Christology pre-dates Paul and appears in the very earliest layers of the Christian faith.

In the end, there are two choices for skeptics intent on rejecting the divinity of Jesus. On the one hand, they could argue that Christians were simply wrong about Jesus being God. And, on the other hand, they could argue that Christians never really believed that Jesus was God.

Based on the evidence above, it seems the former is a much better option than the latter. People are free to disagree with early Christians about what they believed about Jesus. But, there is little doubt that early Christians believed it.

Over the last number of years, God has really used RTS Charlotte to help train folks headed into campus ministry (or coming from campus ministry). In fact, we have an entire institute designed to do just that: the Institute for Reformed Campus Ministry (IRCM).

The IRCM has allowed us to connect with campus ministries like RUF, CRU, Campus Outreach (and others). Many of those folks head to college ministry, and others to the pastoral ministry.

Cole McLaughlin (class of 2007) is a great example of both. After working with CRU for 15 years, Cole is now Senior Pastor at Peace PCA in Cary, NC.

Cole is the next installment in our Where Are They Now? alumni series. He has some great wisdom to offer below–especially the last paragraph! Here is his interview:

1. What are you currently doing?

I am the Senior Pastor of Peace Church (PCA) in Cary, North Carolina, just outside of Raleigh. Prior to coming to Peace, I was on staff with Cru for 15 years, most recently at Duke University.

2. Why did you originally come to RTS Charlotte?

I came to RTS in my mid-twenties, after about 4 years of campus ministry. Students were asking questions that I didn’t have answers for, and that pushed me to seek more training. I took a course on Christianity and Culture that RTS was offering remotely in the Raleigh area, and I was hooked–from that first class on, I encountered at RTS a theological richness and depth that I had never experienced before.

3. Is there one thing that you learned at RTS that has come back to you as you have ministered to others? A phrase, encouragement or advice?

The late Dr. Frank Kik loved to exhort us to remember that we were called to preach to ‘people, not pews.’ Early on, we usually failed to follow his advice, and Dr. Kik would cry out, right as we preached: ‘I’m bored!’ I still imagine him out there sometimes, pushing me to be clearer and more passionate as I speak. Another thing he’d say is, ‘Don’t be impressed when people take notes on your sermon. That doesn’t mean anything. You should seek to preach so well that they can’t take notes.’ If you ever tried to take notes on one of Dr. Kik’s sermons, you knew what he meant. It was hard to write anything with your heart that engaged–and you couldn’t see through the tears. Another great quote that often comes to mind is Richard Pratt’s: ‘The first step toward heresy is you alone with your Bible!’ That quote alone shows the value of an RTS education.

4. What do you enjoy most about your current ministry?

This is a small one, but significant, over time: I enjoy the privilege of pronouncing the benediction each Sunday–it’s a moment when you see the hunger for grace become visible on people’s faces. Seeing that look reminds me not to give up, that the work of the pastor really does have meaning.

5. What has been a struggle in your ministry?

Eugene Peterson talks about the ‘relentless return of the Sabbath.’ Preaching week after week is grueling work. Most of us can come up with a great ‘stump speech’ or two, but ministering God’s Word to the same people, time after time, is a whole different thing. Most any pastor will tell you that to be able to take a Sunday to just sit and listen to someone else preach is a great gift. I try to give myself that gift as much as possible, to keep from burning out. I know a few guys who preach around 50 times a year. I will never be one of those guys!

6. If you could give any encouragement to a current student in seminary, what would it be?

Be humble. If you aren’t thirty years old yet, you probably haven’t earned the right to be too certain about anything! So listen to your pastors, your professors and your wife. Nothing is worse than an arrogant 27-year-old. Believe me, I know–I used to be one. And everyone will like you more if you are humble, because you look a lot more like Jesus that way.

For some critical scholars, the most important fact about early Christianity was its radical theological diversity. Christians couldn’t agree on much of anything, we are told. All we have in the early centuries were a variety of Christian factions all claiming to be original and all claiming to be apostolic.

Sure, one particular group–the group we now know as “orthodox” Christianity–won those theological wars. But why (the argument goes) should we think this group is any more valid than the groups that lost? What if another group (say the Gnostic Christians) had won? If they had, then what we call “Christianity” would look radically different.

Thus, according to these critics, in the second and third centuries there really was no such thing as “Christianity.” Rather there were “Christiantities” (plural), all of which were locked in a battle for theological supremacy.

This entire line of thinking, of course, goes back to Walter Bauer’s 1934 book Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. But, its most ardent supporter today is Bart Ehrman. Ehrman describes precisely this view of early Christianity:

The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all by the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others that insisted there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365 (Lost Christianities, 2).

Ehrman then proceeds to provide a laundry list of many of the conflicting beliefs held by early Christians–a list that no doubt would (and was certainly designed to) overwhelm and shock the average reader.

So, what can be said in response to such claims? Was early Christianity really as diverse as Ehrman claims? Was there no credible standard by which Christians in the second century could tell the difference between true and false beliefs?

There is much to be said in answer to these questions. I have already addressed some of them in a prior blog post (here) and, of course, in my book The Heresy of Orthodoxy.

But, in this short post, I simply want to observe (and respond to) something noteworthy about Ehrman’s methodology. Notice that as he described groups that believed in 2 or 30 or 365 gods, that he refers to these groups as “Christians.”

And why does he do this? Because, as he said, these people “understood themselves to be followers of Jesus.”

But, the use of this terminology by Ehrman is a bit misleading. Sure, these people claimed the name of Jesus. That is not in doubt. But, it strains credibility to think that this is a title that accurately and fairly describes their theology.

The fact of the matter is that Christians did not believe in 2 or 30 or 365 gods. Christians were committed not only to the Old Testament but to a monotheistic system. The historical evidence for this is overwhelming.

The groups that believed in, say, 365 gods were in fact, Gnostics. In particular, Ehrman is referring to Basilides here (and they weren’t really “gods” in the way we think of it, but more like creator-angels).

And the theology of the Gnostics was so out of bounds that it could not be recognizably given the label “Christianity” with any historical or theological credibility.

But, it is not difficult to see why scholars insist on using labels like “Christianity” to describe such groups. The answer is because it creates the impression that there was greater diversity than there really was.

The more the label “Christianity” can be tossed around indiscriminately, then the more it appears that Christians could believe just about anything (and did). In strips the word of all its meaning.

What you have in Ehrman’s statement above, then, is a bit of semantic slight of hand. Yes, it is defensible under the heading that “these people thought they were Christians and who am I to say otherwise?” But, at the same time, it remains substantially misleading and, in the end, unhelpful.

To take a modern example, consider the UFO religious group “Heaven’s Gate” led by Marshall Applewhite. This group believed that they would, upon death, be transported to an alien ship following the Hale-Bopp comet—a belief that led 39 of them to commit mass suicide in 1997. They also claimed to follow Jesus and to be fulfilling the prophecies of Revelation.

What if a newspaper reporter tracking these events went on the evening news and declared, “Christians believe in UFO’s and also believe that they should commit suicide in order to join an alien spacecraft trailing the Hale-Bopp comet.”

When challenged about such a statement, the reporter could say, “Well, this group claims to be Christian!” But, I think we all know that defense is inadequate. No one with journalist integrity would speak in such a misleading way when they know that, historically speaking, this does not represent the Christian faith.

In the end, not everyone who claims to be a follower of Christianity ought to be considered a follower of Christianity. If that basic principle were applied to our study of the second century in a balanced and fair way, I think much (though not all) of the rhetoric about radical diversity would have to be modified.

One of my favorite cartoons is a picture of man sitting in his library in an isolated chair, reading a book and sipping his brandy. He is an intellectual looking fellow with a sweater vest and glasses.

I laugh at the cartoon because I see myself in it. Or at least I see what I wish was myself.

Over the years, I have tried to be the “internet holdout” but it has become somewhat of a hilarious failure. Each reluctant step into the digital world has led to another. First, I started my own website/blog. Then, I joined the world of Twitter (@michaeljkruger).

And now, having utterly abandoned any pretense to live a non-digital life, I am on Facebook.

The last shred of dignity I can cling to is the fact that this just an “author page” and not the full-fledged version of Facebook. But, looking back on the trend of the last few years, I am sure I will cave into the whole deal eventually!

On a more serious note, it is my hope that being on Facebook will provide an additional avenue to connect with folks. All my blog and twitter posts will be put on Facebook and hopefully this will allow people to find them more easily.

Anyway, if you are on Facebook I would love to have you stop by and say hello by “liking” the page. That will at least make me feel better as I mourn the loss of my non-digital self!

From a pastoral perspective, one of the most common problems I come across in my church–a problem that is often hidden and concealed–is the problem of depression. A substantial amount of people (more than we think) have a serious struggle with this issue.

For this reason, the RTS Charlotte campus is pleased to have Dr. David Powlison from CCEF come speak on this complex topic. David is the executive director of CCEF and one of the leading thinkers, authors, and speakers in the world of biblical counseling.

David will speak from 6:30-8:30PM on Monday, Jan 18th on the Charlotte campus. This session is part of our EQUIP series at RTS Charlotte which has included prior speakers such as Ed Welch, Tim Lane, and Deepak Reju (for more on that series see here).

I hope that you will join us on Jan 18th and bring some friends along or even staff from your church. To register, see here.

Also that same week (Jan 18-22), David and Todd Stryd (also from CCEF) will co-teach a week-long counseling class, Theology and Psychology. For those of you interested in exploring the complex relationship between the Bible and modern psychology, this is the class for you.

There are few statements that will shut down debate more quickly than this one. If Christians disagree over a doctrine, a practice, or an idea, then the trump card is always “God has spoken to me” about that. End of discussion.

But, the history of the church (not to mention the Scriptures themselves) demonstrates that such claims of private, direct revelation are highly problematic. Of course, this doesn’t mean that God doesn’t speak to people. The Scripture is packed with examples of this. But, these were typically individuals with a unique calling (e.g., prophet or apostle), or who functioned at unique times in redemptive history (e.g., the early church in Acts).

After the first century was over, and the apostles had died, the church largely rejected the idea that any ol’ person could step forward and claim to have direct revelation from God. This reality is probably best exemplified in the early Christian debate over Montanism.

Montanism was a second-century movement whose leader Montanus claimed to receive direct revelation from God. In addition, two of his “prophetesses,” Priscilla and Maximilla also claimed to receive such revelation. Such revelations were often accompanied by strange behavior. When Montanus had these revelations, “[He] became obsessed, and suddenly fell into frenzy and convulsions. He began to be ecstatic and to speak and to talk strangely” (Hist. eccl. 5.16.7).

Needless to say, this sort of activity caused great concern for the orthodox leaders of the second century. Part of their concern was the manner in which this prophetic activity was taking place. They condemned it on the grounds that it was “contrary to the custom which belongs to the tradition and succession of the church from the beginning” (Hist. eccl. 5.16.7).

But, the other concern (and perhaps the larger one) was that this new revelation was inconsistent with the church’s beliefs about the apostles. The second-century leaders understood the apostles to be a unique mouthpiece for God; so much so that they would accept no revelation that wasn’t understood to be apostolic.

As an example of this commitment, the early church rejected the Shepherd of Hermas–a book supposedly containing revelations from heaven–on the grounds that it was written “very recently, in our own times” (Muratorian fragment). In other words, it was rejected because it wasn’t apostolic.

This issue reached a head when the Montanists began to write down their new prophecies, forming their own collection of sacred books. The orthodox leaders viewed such an activity as illegitimate because, on their understanding, God had already spoken in his apostles, and the words of the apostles were recorded in the New Testament writings.

A few examples of how the orthodox leaders rejected these books of “new revelation”:

1. Gaius of Rome, in his dialogue with the Montanist Proclus, rebuked “the recklessness and audacity of his opponents in composing new Scriptures” (Hist. eccl. 6.20.3).

2. Apollonius objected on the grounds that Montanist prophets were putting their “empty sounding words” on the same level as Christ and the apostles (Hist. eccl. 5.18.5).

3. Hippolytus complained that the Montanists “allege that they have learned something more through these [Montanist writings], than from law, and prophets, and the Gospels” (Haer. 8.12).

4. The anonymous critic of Montanism recorded by Eusebius registers his hesitancy to write a response to the Montantists lest he be seen as making the same mistake as them and “seem to some to be adding to the writings or injunctions of the word of the new covenant of the Gospel” (Hist. eccl. 5.16.3)

When you look at these responses, a couple of key facts become clear. First, and this is critical, it is clear that these authors already knew and had received a number of New Testament writings as authoritative Scripture. Thus, they already had a NT canon of sorts (even if some books were still under discussion). Indeed, it is the existence of these books that forms the basis for their major complaint against the Montanists.

Second, and equally critical, the response of these writers shows that they did not accept new revelation in their time period. For them, the kind of revelation that could be considered “God’s word,” and thus written down in books, had ceased with the apostolic time period.

In terms of the modern church, there are great lessons to be learned here. For one, we ought to be equally cautious about extravagant claims that people have received new revelation from heaven. And, even more than this, the Montanist debate is a great reminder to always go back to Scripture as the ultimate standard and guide for truth. It is on the written word of God that the church should stand.

It goes without saying that this country has experienced a monumental cultural and ethical shift in the last 5-8 years. What was once seen as wrong is now seen as right. And what was seen as right is now seen as wrong.

One is reminded of the woe in Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

At the forefront of this issue is the topic of homosexuality. And Christians face two distinctive questions in regard to this issue: (1) What does the Bible teach about homosexuality? and (2) What should we think about same-sex marriage in our culture?

On Monday, January 11th, 6:30-8:30PM, RTS Charlotte will host Dr. James White who will give two sessions on precisely these two questions. You can get all the details about these upcoming seminars here.

James is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the author of more than twenty books, a professor, an accomplished debater, and an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

Dr. White will also be teaching our course on Apologetics here at RTS Charlotte that same week, Jan 11-15. If you are interested in taking that course, or just auditing that course, see here for more info.

Dr. White’s lectures are actually part of a larger series we do here at RTS called EQUIP workshops. These workshops are not seminary classes, but are evening events designed to train Christians in the Charlotte community. Prior EQUIP speakers have included Ed Welch, Tim Lane, and Deepak Reju.

On Jan 18th, David Powlison will do a forthcoming EQUIP workshop on the topic of depression and suffering (I will highlight this event in a later post).

If you are in the Charlotte area on Jan 11th, I hope to see you there. In the meantime, here is a video of James White debating liberal scholar John Shelby Spong on the topic of homosexuality:

Now that 2015 is coming to a close, everyone is starting to talk about cranking up the yearly Bible reading for 2016.

But, if you are looking for more than just a link to a good Bible reading program, you will want to check out the great 4-part series my wife Melissa did over at TGC on her blog Wit’s End. She provides the bigger picture reasons and motivations for why Bible reading in a year makes sense.

One of her key reasons is that yearly Bible reading allows us to see the big sweep of redemptive history, something piece-meal reading can never do. Put differently, Bible reading in one year allows us to see (more clearly) that the Bible is really one story, not just a bunch of little ones.

She writes:

Standing up close to an impressionist painting gives you one view of the master’s work – the intricacies of design, the vibrant colors, and the individual brush marks. However, backing away from the painting allows you to see the picture in its entirety. Just as we need both perspectives to be able to appreciate a painting to its fullest, we need both types of views as we read our Bibles.

Taking a year to read the Bible in its entirety allows us the opportunity to back up and observe the full picture. We see the larger story of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration in the midst of all the individual stories. All scripture contains the same DNA – Jesus is on every page, present in every story. The Gospel is repeated in shadows-like accounts, preparing us for the ultimate rescue. Reading the Bible through in a shorter amount of time also allows us a better opportunity to connect what we learned in Deuteronomy with the message of Galatians. You will glean insights that you might have missed (or forgotten) if you read it over a longer time span.

Well, it’s that time of year. Christmas is almost a week away and we are already seeing various media channels releasing stories, articles, and documentaries on Jesus. And when the dust settles, they all make the same point: the real Jesus is a lot different than you think.

This Christmas it is happening again with an article by Valerie Tarico, “Here are Five Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed.” But she takes things even further than most other Christmas articles on Jesus. Rather than suggesting Jesus is different than we think, she is arguing that Jesus never existed at all.

I suppose that might put a damper on some people’s Christmas.

Before I respond to her five reasons below, it may be helpful to understand how unusual articles like this really are. The reason most Christmas articles simply want to rewrite the story of Jesus is because virtually all scholars agree–liberal and conservative alike–that there is little reason to doubt his existence.

Indeed, so convinced are scholars that Jesus certainly existed, that it is difficult to even find scholars who might argue otherwise. The most notable modern example is no doubt Richard Carrier and his book, The Historicity of Jesus.

And incredibly, even the consummate biblical critic, Bart Ehrman, has responded to Carrier in his book, Did Jesus Exist? I must say, it is an unusual experience reading Erhman when he is actually defending (to some degree) the historicity of the Gospel accounts!

So, can Tarico (a psychologist by training) overcome the vast scholarly consensus in favor of Jesus’ existence? Here are her five arguments:

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.

Not surprisingly, Tarico begins with the fact that secular sources don’t talk about Jesus in the first century. But there are a number of problems with this line of reasoning:

(a) It is functionally an argument from silence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Secular historians would have little interest in a stir created by a backwater preacher from Galilee. This simply would not have been on their radar screen. Arguments from silence are widely regarded as fallacious precisely because we don’t always know why historians talk about some things and not others.

(b) Tarico conveniently rules out the numerous Christian sources that do tell us about Jesus (Gospels, epistles, Acts, etc.). She will claim, no doubt, that these sources cannot be trusted. But, ironically, these are precisely the sources that would have actually taken notice of a person like Jesus. Many of the New Testament authors would have actually been in Galilee and Judea and would have been able to record such things (more about this below).

(c) Tarico fails to mention the comments about Jesus in the writings of the first-century historian Josephus. Perhaps this is because Josephus is Jewish and therefore not “secular.” But this is hardly a convincing reason to omit his testimony. As a Jew, he would have had little sympathy to the burgeoning Christian movement.

2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts.

Next Tarico appeals to the well-worn argument that since Paul, our earliest Christian writer, provides little biographical details of Jesus’ life, then Jesus must not have existed. This argument is problematic on a number of levels.

(a) First this argument misunderstands entirely what Paul’s letters were designed to do. They were epistles, not Gospels, and therefore not intended to recount the words and deeds of Jesus. Tarico is confused about the genre of early Christian writings and assumes they would all cover the same territory.

(b) Paul actually knows quite a bit of historical details about Jesus and these come out in various places in his letters. One key example is how he recounts (in detail) what Jesus did and said at the Last Supper (1 Corr 11:23-26).

(c) Paul would have known the immediate disciples of Jesus, such as Peter and John, and would have had access to many other people who lived during the time of Jesus. If Jesus never existed, are we to think that Peter and John just lied to Paul? Or are we to think that Paul just made up characters of Peter and James and the witnesses of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-8)? And if Jesus never existed, would not Paul have heard this from other people who were alive in the purported time of Jesus’ life? In the end, Paul’s life is nonsensical if Jesus didn’t really exist.

3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts.

At this point, Tarico’s misunderstanding of the New Testament documents becomes even more apparent. She claims that “we know” that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That is patently false.

John’s gospel, for instance, claims to be written by someone who is actually at the last Supper and an immediate disciple of Jesus (John 21:24). And the historical evidence for John as this person is very strong (the link between Irenaeus and Polycarp bears this out).

Another example that the Gospels contain “eyewitness” testimony comes from the Gospel of Mark. We have early, widespread, and uniform patristic testimony that this Gospel was written by Mark the disciple of Peter, and that the Gospel therefore contains Peter’s eyewitness accounts.

Tarico would have done well to familiarize herself with Richard Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses which paints nearly the opposite picture she has presented in her article. If she had, she would realize that there is tremendous evidence that the Gospels are first-hand accounts of the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.

I suppose it was inevitable that the issue of supposed contradictions between the gospels would be raised. But, this argument simply doesn’t work:

(a) Declaring it doesn’t make it so. Notice that Tarico has just assumed there are contradictions without showing that there are contradictions. Yes, the Gospels offer different perspectives on the life of Jesus, but there is no reason to regard these as contradictory. A lot of these so-called contradictions evaporate upon closer inspection, especially when methods of ancient historiography are taken into account (which are quite different than modern ones).

(b) Even if the Gospels contradict each other, this doesn’t prove Jesus didn’t exist. There is a non sequitur in Tarico’s argument here. Even if some historical sources disagree at points, this doesn’t require a wholesale abandonment of the historical realities that stand behind them. Indeed, if we adopted Tarico’s standards here we would not be able to affirm hardly any historical events!

5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

Again, this is a non sequitur in Tarico’s reasoning. Since scholars disagree about the details of Jesus’ life therefore he never existed? How does that follow? Jesus could really exist and scholars could also disagree about the specifics–the two are not mutually exclusive.

Also, what Tarico fail’s to understand is that the disagreement amongst scholars is not necessarily due to problematic sources. It may be due (and often is) to the fact that scholar refuse to accept the content of the sources we do have and instead insist on reconstructing Jesus for themselves.

Thus, the failure of scholars to agree about Jesus says more about modern historical methods (and the refusal of modern people to accept the Gospels as they are) than it does about whether Jesus actually existed.

In the end, Tarico has provided few reasons to think we should doubt the existence of Jesus. On the contrary, each of her suggested reasons, when explored more fully, reveal that we actually have very solid reasons to believe in the existence of Jesus.

In short, the scholarly consensus on this matter exists for a reason. Scholars may disagree about a great many things regarding Jesus. But his existence is not one of them.

As the title suggests, this is yet another book (in a long list of predecessors) that insists that the idea of an authoritative Scripture is a late invention of Christians.

According to Satlow, the Bible was not originally holy. It became holy. And that didn’t even happen until well into the third century or later.

Although Satlow’s volume covers both OT and NT issues, my review addressed some weaknesses on the NT side of things:

As for the development of the New Testament canon, Satlow provides a brief overview of some of the major players in the second century, including Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Irenaeus (pp. 241–56). Although there is substantial evidence that these individuals held a high view of New Testament writings, one gets the impression that Satlow is trying to minimize this evidence at every turn. For example, when it comes to Justin Martyr, he argues that the Gospels “play a relatively minor role for him” and “didn’t play much of a role in the lives of most ordinary Christians” (p. 250). But, then Satlow just glosses over the major text that shows otherwise, namely Justin’s description of how the Gospels are read in early Christian worship services as Scripture on par with the Old Testament writings (1 Apol. 67.3). Surely this suggests that the Gospels not only possessed a high authority, but that they did play an important role in the life of ordinary Christians.

In order to downplay further the authority of New Testament writings during this time period, Satlow then argues that early Christian scribal cultural was problematic. He makes three claims: (a) Christian manuscripts were “utilitarian” and lack evidence of being written by professional scribes; (b) manuscripts were not written for public recitation; and (c) physical features of manuscripts had no (or very little) importance (pp. 255–256). However, each of these claims is in serious doubt. Graham Stanton has observed, along with many others, that the scribal hand of many early NT manuscripts is quite professional, suggesting the scribes were more well-trained than many suppose. Stanton reaches the opposite conclusion of Satlow when he states, “The oft-repeated claim that the gospels were considered at first to be utilitarian handbooks needs to be modified” (Jesus and Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press], 206). The argument that the Gospels were not written for public recitation has been taken up by a number of scholars, including Scott Charlesworth who (again) reaches the opposite conclusion of Satlow, arguing that the line spacing and reader’s aids in many gospel manuscripts suggest they were intended for public reading (“Public and Private: Second-and Third-Century Gospel Manuscripts,” in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon, ed. C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias [London: T&T Clark, 2009], 148–175). And as for the physical features of New Testament manuscripts, Satlow is correct that they did not exhibit the elite, high-culture artistic features of some literary texts in the Greco-Roman world. But, that doesn’t mean their visual/physical characteristics played no role. Larry Hurtado has shown that early Christians valued more than the text, but also the visual and material appearance of their manuscripts, particularly as exemplified by the use of the codex, nomina sacra, and the staurogram (The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Origins [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006]).

And here is my conclusion:

In conclusion, Satlow has written an interesting, provocative and wide-ranging volume on the origins of the Old and New Testaments that provides much helpful information on the history of biblical texts. However, Satlow’s aggressive (and sometime speculative) reconstruction often presses the evidence beyond what it can bear. In addition, one gets the impression that Satlow is intent on minimizing the role of Scripture in both Israel and the early church, even when the evidence could be naturally read in the other direction. The broad, narrative style of the book allows him to lay out the standard higher-critical view of biblical origins, but does not provide the sort of documentation of his claims that might persuade those who don’t already share his starting point. Regardless, those in the field of biblical studies, especially those interested in the origins of the canon, will want to read and interact with this volume.

RTS has started a new video series called Wisdom Wednesday where our faculty share their advice on a number of important practical and theological issues. Keep an eye out for it on Twitter in weeks to come (@ReformTheoSem#WisdomWednesday).

Below is my video from yesterday’s installment on how seminary students can keep their devotional life strong in the midst of their studies. Although it is directed to a seminary context, I hope it would be helpful for any Christian who wants to go deeper in their devotional life. Enjoy!

We certainly have no shortage of books defending and upholding the authority of Scripture. In fact, I recently posted my list of top ten books on this subject.

And the reason we have so many of these books is not hard to find. The world continues to attack the Bible. And many Christians continue to doubt the Bible.

But one thing we do have a shortage of is certain kinds of books on the authority of Scripture. Most books on the authority of Scripture are either providing a theological explanation of our doctrine of Scripture, or are providing historical evidence for how the Bible was put together. Or maybe both.

But, what tends to be lacking in most discussions is how the Bible witnesses to its own divine authority. Or, put another way, how the internal characteristics of Scripture point toward its divine origins. I’ve tried to address this important issue myself in various ways (for instance, see my book Canon Revisited, and my recent post: What Do We Mean When We Say the Bible is ‘Self-Authenticating’?), but more on the subject is needed.

Building on the work of Jonathan Edwards (no surprise there), Piper makes the case that we know the Scriptures are true because in them we behold the wonder and the glory of Christ himself. He states in the introduction: “Thus, at the end of all human means, the simplest pre-literate person and the most educated scholar come to a saving knowledge of the truth of Scripture in the same way: by a sight of its glory.”

“There are few questions more important than ‘How Do I know the Bible is God’s Word?’ And there are few people who could address it as well as John Piper. Drawing from the deep theological well of Jonathan Edwards, and with a practical eye for the average believer in the pew, Piper has helped us recover the foundational importance of a self-authenticating Bible. This book will revolutionize the way you think about God’s Word.” –Michael J. Kruger, President and Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC

“Here we find compelling arguments for the truthfulness of the Scriptures and profound meditations on the stunning glory of God.” –Tom R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

When it comes to the question of how to preach, there is no shortage of books, articles, and blog posts offering advice and guidance. And once you start sifting through these materials, it becomes apparent that there is no shortage of disagreement about the particulars of the preaching task.

With that broader context in mind, I am hesitant to jump into the fray over preaching methodology. But, there is one question that my students keep asking me, so I thought it would be worth addressing. And that question is, “Should I preach from a full manuscript?”

By “full manuscript” they mean they write out their sermon exactly how they would preach it, word for word.

This is a particularly common question amongst seminary students because (a) they are getting conflicting advice on the matter, and (b) they are often a bit fearful about that first preaching experience.

But, I think progress can be made on this question if one important distinction is maintained, namely the difference between writing a manuscript and using a manuscript. The former is a very helpful and worthwhile exercise (particularly for younger preachers). The latter, in my opinion, can seriously hinder a preachers development as well as the effectiveness of their delivery.

The benefits of writing out a full manuscript are many. It forces the preacher to think clearly about each of their points and how to develop them, it helps the preacher think through transitions between points (something often overlooked), it helps keep the sermon within the desired time limit, and the exact wording allows for more theological precision.

And, on top of all of this, a full manuscript allows a preacher to retrieve their sermon several years later and preach it again without wondering what he originally said.

But, when it comes to using a manuscript in the pulpit, there are serious drawbacks:

1. It (almost) inevitably leads to “bubble preaching.”

Having seen countless seminary students use full manuscripts over the years, they almost always (there are a few exceptions) end up reading it. If you have the full text in front of you word for word, and you are already worried about what you are going to say, then reading it is a foregone conclusion.

And when a preacher reads a manuscript, it almost always leads to what I call “bubble preaching.” This is when the preacher is in his own little bubble, going through his message line by line, with virtually no connection to the outside audience. Sure he gives the token eye contact, on cue every seven seconds or so, but no one really feels a vibrant link to the person as he is preaching.

Bubble preaching is when a preacher could be in the sanctuary completely by himself and you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference–the delivery would be exactly the same.

Of course, there are always exceptions to this concern. Some are so exceptionally gifted that they are able to read a manuscript without sounding like they are reading a manuscript. Others are able to have a manuscript in the pulpit but (in superhuman fashion) resist the urge to read it.

If these exceptions apply to you, then feel free to keep using a manuscript. But, for the rest of us mere mortals, we will need an alternative.

2. It overly prioritizes content.

Let me clear, when it comes to preaching content is king. As preachers we have a message to deliver and we need to get that message right. But, concern for content can so dominate a sermon, that there is little consideration given to how (or why) people receive the content. We are not doing our jobs if we get the content right but it is never heard due to poor delivery. Good content doesn’t matter if no one is listening.

Preachers who are able to break out of their bubble, make real eye contact, and engage with the congregation, can be, paradoxically, more effective in delivering their content than those who use a manuscript.

Given a choice between perfect word-for-word delivery in a bubble, and an imperfect delivery outside the bubble, I will take the latter.

3. It slows a preachers development.

Standing up and reading a manuscript every Sunday prevents most preachers from learning to speak extemporaneously. It gives a preacher less opportunity to learn to speak on his feet. Why are such skills necessary? For one, as noted above, I think such skills make him a more effective communicator that is more directly engaged with his congregation.

But, such skills are also necessary because a pastor does not always have a manuscript in front of him when he is required to speak outside the puplit. In a counseling situation, for example, where a pastor is applying the Word of God to a particular issue, he cannot prepare a manuscript in advance. He must learn to communicate clearly, cogently, and persuasively, with no manuscript at all.

Or perhaps someone asking him questions in a Sunday School class that require on-the-spot answers. Or perhaps he is witnessing to his neighbor and has to explain important doctrines on the fly. None of these situations allow him the luxury of a manuscript, and yet he must speak.

Someone might object that they don’t have the skill set to speak more contemporaneously. Fair enough. But, the question isn’t whether you have the skills now, but how you will develop those skills in the future. And those skills won’t develop by sticking with a full manuscript.

4. It misunderstands the difference between written and oral communication.

One of the major drawbacks of writing a sermon is that very few people can write a sermon in the kind of language that can effectively be preached. What makes for effective written communication is not always what makes for effective oral communication. Indeed, they are often like two different languages–the pace, the style, the cadence, and even the vocabulary can be notably different.

This is why reading a sermon manuscript rarely works. Reading simply doesn’t sound the way preaching sounds. It sounds, well, like reading. They are two different genres.

In light of these four concerns, I might suggest an alternative to a full manuscript. Instead, I encourage my students to use a detailed outline. This is more than the single (small) page of notes that Spurgeon would take into the pulpit. (When asked whether he wrote out his sermons, Spurgeon famously quipped “I’d rather be hung”!).

No, unlike Spurgeon, I am talking about multiple pages of detailed notes. And such a detailed outline, I would argue, demonstrates concern for both content and delivery.

On the content side, the outline provides the necessary prompts to carefully explain the theological and textual issues at hand. Moreover, the fact that the outline is detailed (and not just broad bullet points) still allows a pastor to go back to the manuscript later and know what he preached the first time around.

On the delivery side, an outline does not allow for easy reading like a manuscript. Indeed, one cannot just read an outline (least they become non-sensical). Thus, the preacher is forced to articulate the point more fully in his own words. And this helps develop a preachers public speaking ability, not to mention his connection to the congregation.

Of course, merely having an outline does not prevent a preacher from keeping his head down, stuck in his notes. But, at least he is not required to stick his head in his notes (which is largely the case with reading). An outline at least creates more natural opportunities for eye contact and congregational connectivity.

In the end, the decision about using a manuscript is not an easy one. There are great preachers who use full manuscripts. And there are great preachers who do not. And so people will reach different conclusions about this issue.

But, I still have to give an answer to my students. They want to know what method is the most effective in developing preachers. Not writers, but preachers. And the answer to that question, I am convinced, is not to be found in full sermon manuscripts.

As many know, the last two years I have been teaching a weekly women’s Bible study at RTS Charlotte designed to reach the community outside the formal seminary classroom. Every Wednesday, 120 plus women gather together to study the book of Romans, and it has been a delight.

We made it to the beginning of Romans 11 before stopping for the winter break, and we will resume in the Spring. If you are interested in seeing the videos and getting the handouts, you can go here.

Of course, as everyone knows, one of the major themes in Romans 9-11 is the doctrine of election. In fact, in Rom 11:7-8 Paul says again:

What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened. As it written, ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see.

In light of a passage like this, it is natural for folks to wonder whether God really wants people to be saved. Why would he “harden” someone and send them a “spirit of stupor” if he wants to save them?

But, our answer to these questions depends on what we mean when we say that God “wants” something. And when we talk about what God wants we inevitably must talk about the “will” of God. And this is a subject that requires some careful nuance.

Historically speaking, theologians have distinguished between three different sorts of “wills” for God:

1. Decretive will. This refers simply to what God decrees or ordains by his sovereign will. And we know from Eph 1:11 that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. So, in this sense, we can say that a hurricane, for example, is God’s “will.”

2. Preceptive will. This refers simply to what God has commanded, his precepts. So, God’s “will” is that we honor our parents, keep the sabbath holy, not commit adultery, etc.

3. Dispositional will. This refers to that which pleases or delights God. E.g., “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Lord God” (Ezekiel 18:23)

When these three “wills” of God are considered, we can see that God, from one perspective, does not “want” (dispositional will) the wicked to perish. But, from another perspective, God has decreed that some will be saved and some will not (decretive will).

This is not that different than what we do even on a human level. A human judge in a court of law may not “want” to send a criminal to prison for life, but he will still do so because he is a just judge. So, in one sense he doesn’t “want” to do it; but then in another sense he does “want” to do it.

In the end, therefore, there is no contradiction between the doctrine of election and the fact that God does not delight in the death of the wicked. For this reason the second half of Ezekiel 18:23 is true: “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declare the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?“

Tomorrow I head to Atlanta for the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. This is always a great occasion to catch up with old colleagues, meet new ones, and network with scholars from around the country.

In addition to a full slate of meetings, I will be involved in the following three sessions:

1. On 11/18 at 10:40AM I will be giving a paper in the Synoptic Gospels section (Hilton Grand Salon C) where I will review the recent book by Monte Shanks, Papias and the New Testament (Pickwick, 2013). Afterwards there will be a panel discussion on Papias with me, Monte Shanks and Darrell Bock.

2. Also on 11/18 at 4:40PM I will be giving a paper in the NT Canon, Textual Criticism, and Apocryphal Literature section (Hilton 201) on a miniature codex of 2 John (Gregory Aland 0232). The theme for this year’s session is the physical and textual features of early Christian manuscripts, so this seemed to be an appropriate topic.

3. On 11/19 from 1:00-4:10PM (Hilton 304), I will be moderating the open session of NT Canon, Textual Criticism and Apocryphal literature. There is a great line up of papers by Zachary Cole, Peter Gurry, Nick Perrin, and David Yoon.

But, in the midst of all of this, the most important part of ETS should not be missed: books! This is the main time each year to see all the new publications in one place, and often they are being sold at a major discount. And I will be sticking around for a few days at SBL and enjoying the book tables there as well.

If you are coming to either of these conferences, hope to see you there.

Whenever I teach textual criticism to my seminary students, I usually get two very different responses. For some students, their eyes glaze over and they tune out as soon as they hear the word “paleography” for the first time.

For others, they find themselves fascinated by how texts were transmitted and copied in the ancient world. And they are excited by the fact that we can go to museums and see actual NT manuscripts–the earliest artifacts of Christianity. This archaeological component to textual criticism makes it a very tangible enterprise.

One thing that really helps teach students about this complex subject is finding the right text book. But, admittedly, this has been a challenge over the years. While I have great respect for Metzger’s original edition of The Text of the New Testament, it is written at a scholarly level that creates a challenge for most first-year seminary students. And the new Metzger-Ehrman edition has additional sections that I am not convinced are an improvement over the original.

On the other end of the spectrum is probably Greenlee’s Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. This volume is much more introductory and certainly accessible to first-year seminary students. However, its brevity creates the opposite problem–many issues are not covered at all, or at the level of detail needed.

This conundrum has, in my opinion, been largely solved by the new book by Stan Porter and Andrew Pitts, Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism(Eerdmans, 2015). I received an advance review copy many months ago, but today I received the final version in the mail.

Porter and Pitts aim for (and, I think, hit) the proverbial middle ground between Metzger and Greenlee, thus providing an excellent introduction to seminary students with the appropriate level of detail. It is the essential third bowl of porridge in Goldilocks and the Three Bears!

I also enjoyed this volume because it includes a section on the canon of the New Testament–something most textual criticism volumes do not address. This provides students with a helpful introduction to how the New Testament was formed in the first place.

Here are the endorsements on the back cover, including my own:

Craig S. Keener — Asbury Theological Seminary “This very readable textbook provides a helpful and balanced introduction to text criticism aimed at just the right level for beginning students. It is clear, introduces multiple views, gives good reasons for the approaches it favors, and — an unexpected bonus — offers in two relevant chapters useful, concise introductions to canon formation and translation theory.”

Michael J. Kruger — Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte “Because of the complexity of the field of textual criticism, most introductions are either too detailed or too basic. This exceptional volume by Stanley Porter and Andrew Pitts provides a welcome balance between these two extremes, introducing students to all the critical issues without overloading them with unnecessary detail. It also covers topics that most introductions overlook, such as the development of the New Testament canon and modern English translations. For anyone looking for a balanced, thorough, and yet readable introduction to textual criticism, this is it.”

J. K. Elliott — University of Leeds “Newcomers to the Greek New Testament will find this guide a useful introduction explaining how the establishing of the text is undertaken. It also gives insight into the treasures awaiting a perceptive user concerning textual variants found in the manuscript tradition.”

Craig A. Evans — Acadia Divinity College “This is no ordinary introduction to textual criticism. In addition to offering explanations of the criteria and the critical apparatus, Porter and Pitts explain in very practical ways what the discipline tries to do and the thinking that lies behind it. As a bonus readers are treated to up-to-date discussion of the formation of the canon of Scripture, the nature of the materials used in the production of ancient books, and a history of the English Bible and the theories of translation on which translations are based. The book is rich with examples and insights.”

David Alan Black — Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary “Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism is an excellent treatise on a vitally important subject. Stanley Porter and Andrew Pitts were seeking to produce a textbook that falls midway between Bruce Metzger’s Text of the New Testament and my own New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide, and they have succeeded brilliantly. . . . Their careful research deepens our understanding of the role of textual criticism in exegesis, and I am confident that this book of theirs will be widely used both inside and outside of the classroom.”

Eckhard Schnabel — Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary “Porter and Pitts have admirably achieved what they set out to do — provide a succinct introduction to the manuscript tradition of the Greek New Testament for first- and second-year students of Koine Greek. . . . This book is ideal both for students in classrooms and for general readers who seek reliable information about the origins and the text of the New Testament.”

Thomas J. Kraus — University of Zurich “In this book Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts take interested students by the hand and introduce them to the essentials of New Testament textual criticism. . . . They provide welcome, concise assessments of external and internal evidence for judging textual variants. . . . A very useful tool for instructing students in New Testament textual criticism.”

In popular religious discourse, one of the most common claims is that all religions are pretty much the same. They all tap into the same general truth and offer a (partial) glimpse into the reality of the divine. Thus, it is argued, no religion can claim to be the only right one.

I was reminded afresh of this claim the other day when my wife visited the Biltmore House, an historic home here in North Carolina. On display in the house was a carving of an elephant with several blind men examining different parts of it (see inset photo).

This display is patterned after the well-worn analogy that all religions are like blind men feeling different parts of an elephant. As the blind men try to determine what an elephant is like, one feels the trunk and says, “An elephant is like a snake!” Another feels the tail and says, “An elephant is like a rope!” Another feels a leg and says, “An elephant is like a tree trunk!”

And so, the argument goes, they are all right because they are only seeing part of the truth. Likewise, each religious system is only seeing part of the truth.

At first glance, this analogy seems quite convincing and utterly reasonable. After all, for a person to claim their religion is right and all others are wrong seems to exhibit a shocking degree of hubris. Who could possibly be that arrogant? Isn’t it more humble to simply claim that all religions are basically tapping into the same truth?

But, sometimes first glances are mistaken. This analogy is deeply problematic on a number of levels. The core problem is that while the analogy argues that all religions only see part of the elephant, the person giving the analogy claims to see the whole elephant! In other words, while all religions are blindly groping around, the person using the analogy is basically saying, “Let me tell you how all religions really work.” But, why is this individual exempt from his own analogy?

Moreover, we might want to ask how the giver of the analogy knows that all religions works this way? Has he personally examined all possible religious systems to know they are “blind”? To make such a claim with any credibility, this individual would have to have near-omniscient knowledge of the world and all the religious systems in it.

On top of all of this, the elephant analogy contains a serious misunderstanding of what counts as arrogant. A given claim is not arrogant simply because it is a “big” claim, or significant in its scope or impact. The arrogance or non-arrogance of a claim depends on whether one has adequate grounds for that claim.

If Christians claimed that Christianity was the only true religion on the basis of their own personal investigations and personal knowledge, then such a claim might indeed count as arrogant. But, that is not the grounds for Christianity’s claim to exclusivity. Rather, it is grounded in the teachings of Jesus himself, the incarnate son of God (John 14:6). And there is nothing arrogant about depending on divine revelation.

In the end, therefore, there is a rich irony in this analogy. It is used to chide Christians for being arrogant, but it is the user of the analogy that is exhibiting the real arrogance. In essence, they are saying, “I know all religions are really blind, and I can see the whole ‘elephant.’ And therefore I can tell you that Christianity is not the only way.”

Or, put another way, the user of the elephant analogy is basically claiming, “I am absolutely sure there are no absolutes.”

One of the most enjoyable aspects of speaking to different groups on the reliability of the Bible is the Q&A time. It is an exciting (and risky) affair because you never know what you are going to get.

Then again, sometimes you do know what you are going to get. Over the years, one question has been asked more than all others combined: “What are the best books to read on the authority of the Bible?”

Due to the popularity of that question, I have compiled an annotated list of the 10 best books on this topic. It goes without saying that such a list is highly selective (and debatable). So many good books deserve to be included.

But my list is guided by these main criteria: (a) books that focus on the theological side of biblical authority and not as much on the historical evidences for the Bible’s history (though some overlap is inevitable); (b) books that are “modern,” meaning they have been written sometime between the Reformation and the present (otherwise, many patristic works would make the list); and (c) books that are rigorously orthodox (for this reason, Karl Barth’s Dogmatics is not on the list despite the fact that it has been influential on the modern church’s view of Scripture).

Even though this first entry technically includes two books, I am regarding them together since the same authors edited both of them. I appreciate that these books gather together some of the best evangelical scholars who cover a wide variety of contemporary issues related to biblical authority. There are essays from theological, philosophical, historical, hermeneutical, and exegetical perspectives. Although some of the essays need to be updated (some are 30 years old), they constitute an indispensable treasure trove of material on the authority of the Bible.

I don’t prefer to use systematic theologies in this list, but Bavinck’s work is too important to pass up. Bavinck originally published his Gereformeerde Dogmatiek from 1895 to 1901, and we are blessed to have it translated into English. It provides the quintessential introduction to a Reformed view of Revelation and Scripture, and one can hear echoes of Bavinck for generations to come in major scholars such as Geerhardus Vos, Cornelius Van Til, Herman Ridderbos, and Louis Berkhof. If you find these Dutch theologians difficult to understand then go back and read the one on whose shoulders they are standing: Bavinck.

Young was a vigorous defender of the authority of Scripture, and this book embodies the ethos of his scholarship. It focuses primarily on the extent of inspiration (against those who try to limit it), and the doctrine of inerrancy (against those who suggest the Bible makes mistakes). This book lays out the foundational truths about the authority of the Bible in a clear and compelling manner. Young even covers a number of alleged contradictions and offers helpful solutions. All pastors should read this book.

This fine collection of essays by the faculty of Westminster is too frequently overlooked. With articles from Murray, Young, Stonehouse, and Van Til, and a foreword from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, it is difficult to know how it has been forgotten. The most important article is the first, by John Murray, where he lays out the self-attesting nature of Scripture and the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit that helps God’s people identify Scripture. In a world where most defend the authority of Scripture purely on the basis of historical evidence, Murray brings a refreshing and welcome perspective. Our doctrine of Scripture needs to include serious reflection on the issue of Scripture’s self-authentication, and this volume is the place to start.

This little book is one of my all-time favorites. It is small, but it packs a punch. The book is written in the context of the early 20th-century controversies over “fundamentalism” and whether we can (or should) still embrace traditional beliefs about the authority of the Bible. Carefully, patiently, and methodically, Packer walks through all the key issues related to these debates and impressively defends the traditional view. This is a great book to give to a fellow Christian struggling with these issues.

Don’t let the date of this book fool you. Whitaker lived from 1547 to 1595, during the height of the Protestant Reformation, and dedicated the book to William Cecil, chancellor of Cambridge University. This book is a masterful defense of the Protestant view of the Bible. Whitaker spends considerable time defending the self-authenticating nature of Scripture and contrasts it effectively with the Roman Catholic approach. This book is also overlooked in many discussions and deserves a much wider reading. Thanks to Soli Deo Gloria publishers, we don’t have to try to read it in Latin.

Moving forward one century from Whitaker, Owen provides one of the finest articulations of the Reformed doctrine of Scripture from the Puritan era. He too focuses on the self-authenticating nature of Scripture and the role of the Holy Spirit, contrasting it with alternative models, particular Roman Catholic. This is vintage Owen: thorough, meticulous, verbose, and utterly profound. Be warned: this is no light beach reading. It is a heavy slog to get through anything Owen writes. But the reward is worth it.

Kline is one of the most original Christian thinkers in the last century, and this book is no exception. He approaches the issue of biblical authority from a distinctive angle, namely the covenantal structure of the Old Testament. Kline argues that the idea of an authoritative text derives directly from God’s covenant-making activities. You can’t understand the authority of the Bible if you don’t understand the nature of the covenant. This is a no-frills book (I still have my original copy from when I had Kline as a professor; pea-green cover and all), but it is truly ground-breaking.

If you are looking for a comprehensive, profound, and utterly biblical treatment of the authority of Scripture from a Reformed perspective, then this is the book. This is the fourth installment in Frame’s series, A Theology of Lordship, but is really the most foundational volume (although The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God is right up there). There is hardly an issue Frame doesn’t cover, or a question he doesn’t answer. And his answers are so clear and balanced that it makes you wonder why you ever had that question in the first place. No one is better than Frame at making complex ideas simple (some scholars seem to have the opposite gift). This book is a treasure trove of wisdom that every pastor needs to have on the shelf ready at hand.

Classics are classics for a reason. Warfield’s work still stands out today as one of the most cogent, insightful, and helpful works on the authority of Scripture. It aptly represents the ethos of Old Princeton and is the gold standard for a distinctively Reformed view of the Bible’s inspiration. Warfield’s insights are so applicable to modern-day issues that it is easy to forget the content is more than 100 years old. In addition, Van Til’s introduction (68 pages long) is immensely helpful. It provides a presuppositional context for Warfield’s work, and reminds the reader that Van Til and Warfield had more in common than some people assume (though there are still differences).

If we learn anything from church history, its that the church fights the same battles over and over again. Until Christ returns and redeems His church, this reality is, to some degree, inevitable. And one of those reoccurring battles is the issue of biblical authority. For a variety of reasons, this topic continues to pop up again and again.

In the last 50 years, one of the key issues related to biblical authority is the issue of inerrancy. Is inerrancy a recent, post-enlightenment, rationalistic (and largely American) invention as so many maintain? While one most always be careful to explain and nuance the meaning of the term, I don’t think it should be kicked to the curb as some suggest. Rather, I have argued elsewhere (see here) that it is one of the most natural words for expressing the core belief that Christian’s have always had about the Bible, namely that it is true.

Because of the importance of inerrancy, I was pleased to participate in the forthcoming volume, The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspectives, ed. John MacArthur (Crossway, 2016). This volume pulls together a fine collection of pastors and scholars including Ligon Duncan, John Frame, Carl Trueman, Stephen Nichols, Al Mohler, Kevin DeYoung, Sinclair Ferguson, Mark Dever, R.C. Sproul, and others.

My own chapter was entitled, “Inerrancy, Canonicity, Preservation, and Textual Criticism.” As the title suggests, I deal with two major challenges two inerrancy: Do we have the right books? And do we have the right text?

One of the exciting aspects of life at RTS Charlotte is seeing all the female students come through and head off into various kinds of ministry. God is using these students in special ways, whether in college ministry, youth ministry, missions, women’s ministry, or counseling.

Our ministry to women is exemplified in Tari Williamson (class of 2005) who is the Dean of Women here on the Charlotte campus. Tari has developed a wonderful women’s ministry–to both female students and student wives. Her energy and enthusiasm has created a flourishing community where women feel loved and cared for.

I am currently serving the female students and student wives at RTS Charlotte as their dean of women. Throughout my 25 years on staff at RTS I have also worn and am still wearing several other hats, such as: faculty secretary, doctor of ministry assistant, and student council advisor. In addition to my paid vocation, I occasionally teach the women at my church and this summer led a five week study on Philippians. One of my favorite current activities is writing, which I hope may one day turn into something publishable. I write on topics that weave together my theology and experiences, which I post on-line in a blog. With a team of RTS staff, students & student wives, my vocation also allows me the privilege of running an urban camp each year for a week at Brookstone Schools in Charlotte. It is truly one of my favorite weeks of the year.

2. Why did you originally come to RTS Charlotte?

My husband, Tom, and I came to RTS at the encouragement of Luder Whitlock. Tom, first attended RTS Jackson 25 years ago and graduated four years later with two master degrees. While in Jackson I enjoyed auditing a class each semester, but it wasn’t until my second year on staff at RTS Charlotte that I got the nudge to begin a degree program myself. Of course I attribute that nudge to the Holy Spirit, yet marvel at his pragmatic sensibilities: he used another female student and a generous staff scholarship to get my attention. I remember thinking, “If she could do it, maybe I could too.” It was the second best decision of my life.

3. Is there one thing that you learned at RTS that has come back to you as you have ministered to others? A phrase, encouragement or advice?

My favorite piece of advice came from the late Frank Kik, Professor of Practical Theology. He was not only my professor but a mentor and friend. Chatting one day after class privately, I told him that I didn’t know what God wanted me to do with my life post-seminary. He said, “You don’t have to know. Just get ready.” Seminary got me ready, and that advice also calmed my anxious heart greatly at the time. I have passed that advice forward dozens of times since then.

4. What do you enjoy most about your current ministry?

It is hard to pick just one thing, because there is so much about my vocation that I love (the variety, the relationships, the flexibility, the work environment, my co-workers and bosses). But there is one thing that rises to the top, and that is ministering one-on-one to a hurting woman. I consider it a great privilege to share in another’s struggle. Strange as it sounds, I love to cry with women, but more than that, I love to encourage them. I love to instill in them the truth that our God is ever-present and extremely abundant, all while convincing them that often his ways are not their ways. Even though his ways may not always “feel” abundant, they are making us usable for his kingdom. If I’ve done that, I’ve had an enjoyable day.

5. What has been a struggle in your ministry?

Me. I just get in the way. I care too much about what other people think, even when I am working on it. I never have enough wisdom. I remember telling my husband about the advice I dished out to a new student one day and his comment was, “I can’t believe you said that!” I later found out that it took the student a while to get over it too. Thankfully love covers a multitude of bad advice.

6. If you could give any encouragement to a current student in seminary, what would it be?

Just one hour ago, I was having lunch with a student. She was feeling anxious about taking her first exam in seminary. So there was much opportunity to be an encouragement, dole out advice, and get very preachy. On the drive back to campus, I told her about this question, and asked her, “So what piece of encouragement do you think sunk in?” (I paraphrase!) She said it was the part about, “Remember you are in seminary because you love Jesus.”

In the study of the New Testament canon, scholars like to highlight the first time we see a complete list of 27 books. Inevitably, the list contained in Athanasius’ famous Festal Letter (c.367) is mentioned as the first time this happened.

As a result, it is often claimed that the New Testament was a late phenomenon. We didn’t have a New Testament, according to Athanasius, until the end of the fourth century.

But, this sort of reasoning is problematic on a number of levels. First, we don’t measure the existence of the New Testament just by the existence of lists. When we examine the way certain books were used by the early church fathers, it is evident that there was a functioning canon long before the fourth century. Indeed, by the second century, there is already a “core” collection of New Testament books functioning as Scripture.

Second, there are reasons to think that Athanasius’ list is not the earliest complete list we possess. In the recent festschrift for Larry Hurtado, Mark Manuscripts and Monotheism (edited by Chris Keith and Dieter Roth; T&T Clark, 2015), I wrote an article entitled, “Origen’s List of New Testament Books in Homiliae on Josuam 7.1: A Fresh Look.”

In that article, I argue that around 250 A.D., Origen likely produced a complete list of all 27 New Testament books–more than a hundred years before Athanasius. In his typical allegorical fashion, Origen used the story of Joshua to describe the New Testament canon:

But when our Lord Jesus Christ comes, whose arrival that prior son of Nun designated, he sends priests, his apostles, bearing “trumpets hammered thin,” the magnificent and heavenly instruction of proclamation. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel; Mark also; Luke and John each played their own priestly trumpets. Even Peter cries out with trumpets in two of his epistles; also James and Jude. In addition, John also sounds the trumpet through his epistles [and Revelation], and Luke, as he describes the Acts of the Apostles. And now that last one comes, the one who said, “I think God displays us apostles last,” and in fourteen of his epistles, thundering with trumpets, he casts down the walls of Jericho and all the devices of idolatry and dogmas of philosophers, all the way to the foundations (Hom. Jos. 7.1).

As one can see from the list above, all 27 books of the New Testament are accounted for (Origen clearly counts Hebrews as part of Paul’s letters). The only ambiguity is a text-critical issue with Revelation, but we have good evidence from other sources that Origen accepted Revelation as Scripture (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.10).

Of course, some have rejected this list and have argued that it reflects the views not of Origen but of Rufinus of Aquileia who translated Origen’s Homilies on Joshua into Latin. I respond at length to this claim in the above-mentioned article, arguing that Rufinus is much more reliable of a translator than prior scholars have supposed.

The reliability of Origen’s canonical list finds additional support in the fact that it fits with what Origen says elsewhere. For example, Origen enumerates all the authors of the New Testament in his Homilies on Genesis, and this proves to be a remarkable match with his list of New Testament books:

Isaac, therefore, digs also new wells, nay rather Isaac’s servants dig them. Isaac’s servants are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; his servants are Peter, James, Jude; the apostle Paul is his servant. These all dig the wells of the New Testament (Hom. Gen. 13.2).

One can quickly see that this list of authors (again in classical allegorical style) matches exactly with his list of books. Although Rufinus also translated the Homilies on Genesis, are we really to think that he changed both passages in precisely the same way? It seems more likely that they match with one another simply because they both reflect Origen’s actual views.

Our suspicions are confirmed when we compare these two passages in Origen–the list of books in Homilies on Joshua and the list of authors in Homilies on Genesis–with Rufinus’ own list of canonical books. If Rufinus were guilty of changing Origen’s list to match his own, we might expect a lot of similarities in structure between all these lists. But, that is precisely what we do not find. In fact, Rufinus’ own list differs from Origen’s in a number of important ways (which I detail in the aforementioned article).

In the end, we actually have very good historical reasons to accept Origen’s list as genuine. And if it is, then we have evidence that (a) Christians were making lists much earlier than we supposed (and thus cared about which books were “in” and which were “out”); and (b) that the boundaries of the New Testament canon were, at least for some people like Origen, more stable than typically supposed.

Origen does not offer his list as an innovation or as something that might be regarded as controversial. In fact, he mentions it in the context of a sermon in a natural and matter-of-fact sort of way.

Thus, for Origen at least, it seems that the content of the New Testament canon was largely settled.

Over the last number of years, scholarly (as well as popular) interest in Christian apocryphal works has continued to grow. Folks just can’t seem to get enough of “lost” Gospels and other books that did not make it into the New Testament.

Because of my own interest in the subject, I was pleased that yesterday in the mail I received the new volume edited by Andrew Gregory and Christopher Tuckett, The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha (Oxford, 2015). This volume includes a fine collection of scholars covering a wide range of topics related to apocryphal Christian works.

In the ongoing debates about the reliability of early Christian manuscripts, and whether they have been transmitted with fidelity, it is often claimed that early Christian scribes were amateurs, unprofessional, and some probably couldn’t even read.

In Michael Satlow’s recent book, How the Bible Became Holy(Yale, 2014), this same sort of argument appears. Satlow’s book argues that both the OT and NT canons were late bloomers, and that they bore no real authority until the third or fourth century CE. And part of the evidence for this claim comes from Satlow’s assessment of the NT manuscripts. He states:

The copies of early Christian manuscripts from around the second century CE were utilitarian. They were generally on papyrus rather than the more expensive and durable parchment. They lack the signs both of being written by a professional scribe and of being intended for public recitation (255).

There are a lot of claims in this brief couple of sentences. Unfortunately, virtually every one of them is mistaken. Let’s take them one at a time:

1. Early NT Manuscripts were unprofessional/utilitarian. This claim, though widespread, has been seriously questioned in recent years. Although some of the earliest Christian papyri (second and third centuries) were not characterized by the formal bookhand that was common among Jewish scriptural books or Greco-Roman literary texts, others were much closer to the literary end of the scale than is often realized. In fact, many second/third century Christian texts do exhibit a more refined hand and literary style, such as P77 (Matthew), P46 (Paul’s letters), P4-P64-P67 (Luke and Matthew), and P66 (John).

Such evidence led Graham Stanton to declare, “The oft-repeated claim that the gospels were considered at first to be utilitarian handbooks needs to be modified” (Jesus and Gospel, 206). Likewise, Kim Haines-Eitzen directly states, “The earliest copyists of Christian literature were trained professional scribes” (Guardians of Letters, 68, emphasis mine).

2. Serious manuscripts were on parchment, not papyrus. This, again, is a bit misleading. For the first four centuries, most Christian manuscripts were on papyrus but this does not mean they were valued less or regarded as something other than Scripture. Indeed, the Gospels were on papyrus during this time period, but Justin Martyr tells us they were read as Scripture alongside OT books (1 Apol. 67.3). Moreover, many OT manuscripts were on papyrus during this time period! And this certainly doesn’t suggest their authority should be lessened.

In addition, the idea that parchment is more durable than papyrus has been challenged by both T.C. Skeat (“Early Christian Book Production,” 59-60) and Harry Gamble (Books and Readers, 45). See also comments on papyrus by Pliny the Elder (Nat. 13.74-82).

3. NT manuscripts were not intended for public reading. This idea, again, has been seriously challenged by a number of modern scholars. Larry Hurtado and Scott Charlesworth have both observed that NT manuscripts, compared to elite literary texts in the Greco-Roman world, have an inordinate number of reader’s aids, more generous spacing between lines, and more characters per line–all designed to help in the public reading of these books. This also seems to fit Justin Martyr’s statement noted above that early Christian texts were being read publicly in worship.

On top of all of this, one might add that Christian scribal practice of abbreviating key words such as God, Lord, Christ, and Jesus–called the nomina sacra (“sacred names”)–indicates a substantially well-organized and developed book/scribal culture.

The nomina sacra were not only widespread among early Christian manuscripts (we can hardly find a text without them), but they also have deep roots that go well into the first century.

How does such an early, widespread scribal convention emerge out of a scribal culture that is supposedly amateurish and disorganized? In short, they don’t. On the contrary, Skeat argues that the nomina sacra “indicate a degree of organization, of conscious planning, and uniformity of practice among the Christian communities which we have hitherto had little reason to suspect” (73).

In sum, the oft-repeated claim that early Christian scribes were unprofessional and untrained simply does not fit with what we know about early Christian manuscripts nor about early Christian literary culture. Loveday Alexander provides a perfect summary,

It is clear that we are dealing with a group [early Christians] that used books intensively and professionally from very early on in its existence. The evidence of the papyri from the second century onwards suggests . . . the early development of a technically sophisticated and distinctive book technology (“Ancient Book Production and the Circulation of the Gospels,” 85).

By now, many have heard the exciting announcement that Greg Lanier (RTS Charlotte class of 2013) has been appointed as the Assistant Professor of New Testament at RTS Orlando. You can read more about that announcement here.

It has been a joy to watch Greg’s academic career since he was here at RTS Charlotte (and was my TA), and is now finishing up his PhD under Simon Gathercole at Cambridge. For those who know Simon, it won’t be a surprise that Greg is doing his thesis in the area of Christology. His topic is Christology in the Gospel of Luke through the Use of Metaphors.

I also noticed that he had an article published in the most recent issue of JBL: “The Curious Case of צמח and ἀνατολή: An Inquiry Into Septuagint Translation Patterns” (vol 134, pp. 505-527). Here is the abstract:

Two main arguments have been proposed to explain the peculiar LXX use of the typically light-related ἀνατολή to render the familiar messianic צמח of Jer 23:5, Zech 3:8, and Zech 6:12. (1) The translators simply made a mistake or switched metaphors, or (2) the translators were using ἀνατολή to highlight the “glow” half of the alleged “glow/grow” semantic field of צמח. This article argues against both views by undertaking a comprehensive semantic analysis of both the Hebrew and the Greek lexical groups, paying particular attention to their literal and metaphorical uses across a broad range of Jewish literature. The analysis demonstrates that the translators’ use of ἀνατολή is a semantically appropriate gloss that captures the underlying sense of the metaphor: the emergence or arising of a deliverer figure.

It is clear by now that we are living through one of the most monumental cultural shifts in the history of America. While most cultural changes are slow and plodding, this one has been a rapid, raging flood wiping out everything in its path.

Christianity, while once the defining influence on American culture and policies, has now become public enemy number one. In many people’s minds, Christians represent a clear and present danger to the social stability of the American enterprise. We are now less like citizens, and more like foreigners.

As a result, a bit of panic is spreading through the ranks. Anxiety levels are high. Christians are wondering how we should deal with this radically new and unprecedented cultural situation.

The answer may be a bit surprising. We deal with this radically new and unprecedented cultural situation by remembering it isn’t radically new and unprecedented.

In fact, it is a return to normal.

Of course, I don’t mean normal in the history of America. In the American experience, the pundits are right: this is an unprecedented cultural shift. But, in the history of God’s people, this present situation is not at all unusual. Indeed it has often been the norm; indeed, even the means by which God has advanced his Kingdom in unique and special ways.

I was struck by this reality the other day while revisiting the well-known story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in Daniel 3. These three Israelites were no longer in Canaan, but were now in Babylon–a foreign country with no loyalty to the God of Israel. They had been exiled. They were foreigners.

Even more than this, the cultural situation in Babylon was eerily similar to the present situation in America:

1. Even though Babylon did not worship Yahweh, they did worship something (everyone does). They were committed to the cultural idol that Nebuchadnezzar had set up (3:1).

2. The idol of Nebuchadnezzar was very intimidating and imposing–over 90 ft. high (3:1).

3. The commitment to this cultural idol was nationwide–everyone bowed down from the least to the greatest. This was especially true of the governing officials (3:2-3).

4. Babylon’s commitment to their idol was remarkably intolerant. It was absolute and dogmatic. It required unquestioned allegiance to the idol, lest one get thrown into the fiery furnace (3:6).

It is also worth adding that this was the same cultural situation that Christians found themselves in the second century. The Roman government viewed Christians as a threat to a stable society and threatened them with death if they would not bow down and pay homage to the Roman gods.

It doesn’t take much reflection to see how similar these cultural situations are to the present one in America. Our nation has become religiously committed to an idol of tolerance–particularly the belief that everyone’s sexual preferences must be embraced and affirmed. This is an intimidating idol which looms threateningly over all our nation’s citizens and is embraced by many of the governing officials.

And, most notably, this idol of tolerance is remarkably intolerant, with a commitment to destroy anyone who does not bow down and pay homage.

The implications of this situation are clear. As Christians we are no longer living in Canaan. Indeed, our situation is a lot more like living in Babylon.

And, this side of glory, that is back to normal.

If we are living in Babylon, then our primary response to the present cultural challenges must be just like Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and just like the second century Christians in Rome.

We must not bow.

Of course, there is more that can be said than this. And there is more than can be done than this. But, nevertheless it all starts with this.

Whatever steps we take to engage our culture–whether intellectually, socially, or politically–we must first be committed to this.

When you are living in Babylon, not bowing is the foundation of all other cultural engagement.

When students graduate from seminary and are looking for a call, they typically go one of two routes: (a) look for an established church that matches their vision and values, or (b) plant their own church that will (hopefully) embody their vision and values.

Although there is nothing wrong with these two options, they both presume that you take a call at a church that is (largely) already where you want it to be. Overlooked in such situations are the many, many smaller churches that are struggling and not necessarily what you want them to be. But, they have amazing potential to grown and change.

This is the world of church revitalization. It is catching on in some quarters, but only slowly. A number of years ago, RTS Charlotte grad Hobie Wood (class of 2011) decided to go this route. He took a smaller, struggling church and decided to commit to it and faithfully minister there, waiting to see what the Lord might do.

And the Lord showed up in a mighty way. Hobie’s ministry is thriving and it is a great reminder that church revitalization is a real option.

I am currently the senior pastor at Christ Presbyterian Church, PCA in Clarkesville GA.

2. Why did you originally come to RTS Charlotte?

I came to RTS after working in campus ministry (Cru). My wife and I were serving at Appalachian State University in North Carolina, and one of the pastors at our church offered for me to take a seminary class at his expense. I had heard of RTS and decided to take a course from the Global campus. From there, the Lord began to change my internal sense of call from campus ministry to pastoral ministry. We left campus ministry and moved to RTS Charlotte in 2008 so that I could attend seminary full-time.

3. Is there one thing that you learned at RTS that has come back to you as you have ministered to others? A phrase, encouragement or advice?

The things that I learned at RTS make their way out in every aspect of the ministry here. Perhaps the main theological idea that comes out in my ministry here is the Reformed/Covenantal understanding of the Bible as one book…with an emphasis on the unfolding of the covenant of Grace. This affects how I preach Christ from the OT, how we teach our congregation to interpret the Bible in their own reading…it affects everything! One more thing – the faculty at RTS were all very clear in teaching us that what our people need is God’s Word…the Word is sufficient for the ministry. This is rescued me from jumping off the ledge of triviality and novelty in ministry…and from being “over programmed.” The people (and I myself) need Jesus…and we get Him in the Scripture. And that’s enough.

4. What do you enjoy most about your current ministry?

I am enjoying the weekly preaching of God’s Word. It’s a joy to prepare, to preach, and to watch God work in the lives of people. It’s also a tremendous blessing to see how God works in my own life as I preach every week. I did not expect such joy in the task of preaching. I enjoy the other aspects as well (shepherding, counseling, discipleship, leadership development) – but preaching is probably the greatest enjoyment in ministry right now.

5. What has been a struggle in your ministry?

I think the greatest struggle in my ministry has less to do with the ministry…more to do with me! Ministry exposes that I am not nearly as far along in my sanctification as I would like to be. It exposes that too often, I am not walking in the grace and truth that I’m preaching. It exposes that my heart has not been softened by the Word that I’ve prayed God would use to soften the hearts of others. I think this is normal…but it’s a struggle to be an imperfect pastor! At the same time, this has been something the Lord has used to break me and bring me to repentance and faith again and again. So while I hate it…I’m glad God is still at work in me and the congregation in the midst of my pastoral imperfections. Sanctification for those in pastoral ministry is a hard road…but a crucial one.

6. If you could give any encouragement to a current student in seminary, what would it be?

My encouragement to current RTS students would be: make sure you pair this excellent education that you’re getting at RTS with a real, legitimate relationship with a local church. Our experience through our normal involvement at church in addition to my internship at the church leaves fingerprints on every aspect of ministry here. It wasn’t just the practical experience of ministering in the church that was helpful….it was also learning what it means to be a normal member of the church. So go deep at RTS…and go deep in the local church. Also, be intentional about forming good relationships with other future pastors while at RTS. The people that I call most frequently about ministry-related things or personal things are my closest friends from RTS, even if they live far away.

This past Friday it was announced that my wife Melissa’s blog, Wit’s End, has been moved over to The Gospel Coalition website. This is very exciting news.

Melissa’s blog does a great job of talking about substantive theological topics while, at the same time, exploring practical nuts-and-bolts aspects of women’s ministry. So, I think it will be a great fit over at TGC and helpful for all involved in ministry, whether men or women.

Here is Collin Hansen’s announcement below. And as he says at the end, congratulate Melissa by follower her on Twitter!

Melissa has been a fixture of our national conferences the past several years. At this year’s national conference she spoke on a panel about ministry among women. During the 2014 women’s conference she addressed “Cultivating Contentment in a Covetous World,” the subject of her first book. And she’ll be speaking three times at next year’s women’s conference: on deepening our walk with Jesus, teaching theology to children, and growing in Christ as a new believer. You can read more about these workshops and register for next year’s conference, June 16 to 18 in Indianapolis.

Over the last year or more, I have been involved in a number of publishing projects, including several academic articles (as chapters in books), and a volume on Christianity in the second century. But, I am particularly excited about the forthcoming volume I am editing entitled, A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the New Testament (Crossway, 2016).

This introduction has multiple contributors, all of which are current or past professors at Reformed Theological Seminary. The NT volume (along with an OT counterpart) are being written in commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of RTS coming up in 2016.

I am blessed to have such a fine collection of scholars in this volume, including Guy Prentiss Waters, Simon Kistemaker, Chuck Hill, Reggie Kidd, Robert Cara, Bruce Lowe, William Barcley, and Ben Gladd. The multi-authored nature of the introduction allows each of them to work in their areas of specialty.

Needless to say, there have been many New Testament introductions prior to this one—from Theodor Zahn’s massive two-volume Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig, 1897) to D.A. Carson’s and Douglas Moo’s very popular An Introduction to the New Testament (Zondervan, 2005). So, one may wonder whether we really need another one. What is distinctive about this particular volume?

In many ways, of course, this new volume is not distinctive. Like many of the volumes that have come before, it is designed to accomplish the same basic task, namely to introduce the reader to the major historical, exegetical, and theological issues within each of the 27 books.

In other ways, however, this volume is distinctive. One example is the way we have tried to make this volume more accessible to the pastor or even the layman who teaches the Bible in their local church. Generally speaking, New Testament introductions have tended to focus primarily on historical-critical issues related to the background of each of the 27 books. While many introductions spend considerable time engaging in highly technical discussions about dating, authorship, textual history, they often devote comparably little space to the theological, doctrinal and practical aspects of these books.

However, for the average Bible study leader or local pastor, such discussions are not always their primary need as they prepare their lesson or sermon. Sure, they need to be introduced to the major background issues, but not in such a way that they get mired down in overly technical discussions. For these reasons, this volume has attempted to make the discussion of background issues more streamlined and more accessible.

As a result, this introduction is able to spend more time on the theological message of each book. Because it is designed primarily to help pastors and Bible study leaders prepare their sermon or lesson, a higher priority is placed on exploring the message of each New Testament book. It is this priority that has led to the title, A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the New Testament.

But, this volume is not only committed to exploring the theological message of individual New Testament books. It is also committed to placing the message of each book within God’s unfolding redemptive plan. The goal is more than extracting timeless truths from these books. We also want to discover how these books functioned within the timeline of the larger canonical story—how an author’s message contributes to our overall understanding of the work of Christ.

On top of all this, a noteworthy feature of the volume is that all the authors come from a consistently Reformed perspective. Not only does that mean they hold a high view of Scripture, but it affects the way they handle a number of key theological themes from ecclesiology to soteriology to eschatology.

There is more that could be said, but that is sufficient for now. Here is the NT Intro Cover, which I think looks great. Release date is May 31, 2016.

On the heels of the TGC video I did on surviving a university religion class, I have had an influx of inquiries into this topic. People have been asking all sorts of questions about how to prepare their high school student for what’s to come, or how to encourage their college student in the midst of struggles.

Last Thursday, I was invited to a radio interview with Chris Fabry Live on Moody radio in Chicago (which is nationally syndicated). We had a fascinating discussion on this topic, and had folks call in from all over the country with their questions. Here is what appeared on the moody radio website, along with a link to listen. Enjoy!

September 03, 2015

Surviving World Religions Class

Your freshman is off to college to study. Can your new college student hang onto his or her faith in Jesus? Michael Kruger went to the University of North Carolina a committed believer, ready for any challenge the academic world could present. His New Testament professor was Bart Ehrman. Hear his story.

To read Michael’s blogpost or see his video about “How to Survive a University Religion Class,” please visit his website.

When students graduate from RTS Charlotte, they head out into all sorts of ministries–they become pastors, counselors, missionaries, professors, etc. In addition, they head into all sorts of locations. We have alumni all over the world, in places like Malaysia, China, Japan, Morocco, Peru, Mexico, and beyond.

One of the most exciting examples of international ministry from our grads is the work being done in Prague, Czech Republic. Jake Hunt (class of 2007) is doing some great work in this needy city (along with Charlotte grads Phil Davis and Cody Janicek). This is a strategic place. On the one hand it was the home of the great 14th century Reformer Jan Hus. On the other hand, it is known as the most atheistic city in the world.

I’m the Associate Pastor at Faith Community Church, an international church in Prague, Czech Republic. Our church is about 8 years old, and all 3 of our pastors (Phil Davis, Cody Janiček and myself) came out of RTS Charlotte. We have members from 8 different nationalities, including lots of Czechs and Slovaks. Apart from general pastoral work, my areas of focus are adult education, discipleship, and music.

2. Why did you originally come to RTS Charlotte?

I always laugh at this question, because for such a big and life-changing decision, there wasn’t a whole lot to it.

I had gotten into Reformed theology by reading John Piper, had long sensed a call to be a pastor, and needed a seminary. So I Googled “what seminaries does Desiring God recommend?”, liked the blurb about RTS, saw there was a campus in Charlotte (my wife and I are from Georgia, so that was reasonably close), and set up a visit.

I knew nothing about Presbyterianism and very little about Reformed theology in general, but I loved the emphasis on training pastor-scholars and the relationship of doctrine and piety. That ethos was what attracted me to RTS, what kept me there, and what has made me increasingly appreciate RTS in my first few years as a pastor.

3. Is there one thing that you learned at RTS that has come back to you as you have ministered to others? A phrase, encouragement or advice?

Perhaps my biggest overarching takeaway from RTS was a confidence in God’s Word and Spirit. God’s people need to be strengthened, encouraged, and built up by the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit loves to work through the Word. So in preaching, teaching, counseling, even casual conversation, I try to be as Bible-driven as I can, trust (and ask!) the Spirit to use it, and wait patiently and confidently for fruit.

4. What do you enjoy most about your current ministry?

We are in an essentially atheistic or agnostic culture. That means we can’t depend on much assumed knowledge when we talk about Christianity. We have to avoid Christian jargon and go all the way to the basics: There is a God. We are accountable to him. We can trust the Bible. I love to see the effects of building that solid foundation in the lives of new and young believers. I love seeing lights come on in people’s faces when they hear that God loves them because they’re in Christ, not because they’ve behaved a certain way.

5. What has been a struggle in your ministry?

We are in an essentially atheistic or agnostic culture. That means that the progress is slower than we Americans like to expect. And building relationships with trust, which are essential for evangelism in this context, can take a long time. The turnover in the international community is also sometimes heartbreaking, as we say goodbye to close friends just about every year.

6. If you could give any encouragement to a current student in seminary, what would it be?

Get involved with a solid local church. Uptown Church has been just as important for my family’s growth and walk with God as RTS. Of course a church internship is very helpful for practical experience, and for developing mentor relationships that give you somebody to call when you’re in over your head. But I also credit our membership in a good church with keeping us from spiritual burnout while in seminary, and with helping to avoid the unnatural divorce of mind and heart. And the relationships we formed there are still the foundation of the spiritual, emotional, and yes, financial support team that helps us be in Prague.

It is a story that everyone has heard. Evangelical high school student, who is involved in the youth group and committed to Christ, heads off to the local university. As a freshman, he takes an introductory religion class–probably intro to the OT or NT.

The professor is a critical scholar, deeply skeptical about the historicity of the Bible, and antagonistic to evangelicals. After seeing the Bible take a pounding for an entire semester, and with no one around with any answers, our freshman decides Christianity probably isn’t true after all.

The question isn’t whether this scenario plays out every year all over the country (it does). The question is what can be done about it. Most church youth groups don’t have this scenario on their radar screen when they are preparing students for college. Most of the attention is designed to help students survive morally or ethically, not intellectually.

So, for the student in this situation, I offer some advice in the video below. Thanks to TGC for putting this together and making it available.

One of the classic debates among New Testament scholars pertains to the state of the New Testament text in the earliest centuries (2nd-4th). Was the text transmitted in a “wild” and “uncontrolled” fashion? Or did it exhibit a degree of stability and tenacity (as the Alands would put it)?

My friend Chuck Hill and I engaged this question in 2012 when we edited the volume The Early Text of the New Testamentfor Oxford University Press. In this volume, we collected together over 20 of the finest textual scholars today to address these important questions. The volume did not answer every issue, nor did all its contributors even agree with each other, but (hopefully) it made some important contributions to the discussion.

Given that the book was quite pricey when it came out in hardback–and even in paper back isn’t cheap ($50!)–and is highly technical, we didn’t expect a slew of reviews. But, I was pleased to see the recent review by Jeff Cate, Professor of Christian Studies at California Baptist University.

Cate provides a helpful overview of the contents of the book, and then offers this conclusion:

The Early Text of the NT is an important and unique contribution to these current debates. The individual NT books are examined separately to prevent homogenizing and blurring textual issues in unfortunate and misleading kinds of ways. The second-century sources are also examined individually to see the evidence they are able to present collectively. While some of the material in the essays has been discussed elsewhere by these and other scholars, still much of the analysis has been approached in a new and fresh manner. Crucial data regarding textual reliability in the second century is especially to be noted in both essays by the two editors (Hill and Kruger). The twenty-one essays in The Early Text of the NT are not the final word about the NT text in the first three centuries, but nonetheless it is an important word that must be considered. Those wishing to engage in this debate must examine closely the detailed data provided in this volume.

Thanks to Jeff for the kind review. You can read the whole thing here.

Since the Christian worldview is largely on the defensive these days, it is easy to forget that non-Christians also have a worldview. They are not neutral or undecided about the nature of reality, but have a network of beliefs that is designed to explained the way the world works, or more importantly, the way they think it ought to work.

Some non-Christians may not even realize they have a worldview, and even those who know they have one rarely put all their intellectual cards on the table. You have to sniff around a bit to determine what some people really believe.

But then, in other situations, people just put their worldview out there for all to see. The other day I pulled up behind a car that contained a litany of bumper stickers expressing their view about all sorts of things. They were not hiding their worldview (or at least parts of it).

But, as might be expected, this individual apparently took very little time to consider whether the content of these stickers made sense or even agreed with one another. So, I decided it would be interesting to evaluate this person’s “bumper sticker worldview.” Below is a photo of the bumper (forgive the fuzziness, it was not an easy shot!) and I will analyze each sticker one at a time.

1.”Pro-Child, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice.” This is a popular bumper sticker out there for the pro-choice crowd. In order to allay fears that they may be anti-child (gee, what might give people that impression?) they insist you can be for abortion and for children. Needless to say, the recent Planned Parenthood videos have exposed the tragedy of this logic. You can’t say your pro-child when you kill babies in the womb and sell their parts. The abortion movement is not pro-child, but pro-self. It puts the pleasures and conveniences of the individual above all else.

2. “Compassion is the radicalism of our time–the Dalai Lama.” If compassion is highly valued by this individual, then they ought to extend some to babies in the womb. How can you call for compassion, and then, on the same bumper, turn around and advocate for abortion? Utterly incoherent. Moreover, this tacit endorsement of Buddhism (Dalai Lama) raises issues. Buddhism, as a monistic and pantheistic worldview, has no basis to account for good and evil in the world. If so, then why care about compassion in the first place? On a monistic/pantheistic worldview, why does it matter what one person does to another?

3. “Coexist.” This bumper sticker is everywhere these days. If this bumper sticker simply means that all religions should find a way to get along without trying to destroy the other, then one might have little objection to it. But often this sticker is used to suggest that all these religions are essentially the same, or that no one religion could be true. But, that is nonsense since all these religions make truth claims that are mutually exclusive (see critique of this sticker by my friend Jake Hunt). One might also ask if the call for tolerance that this sticker implies would extend to those people in America who are pro-life or believe in traditional marriage. One wonders…

4. “Whenever there’s a huge solar energy spill it is just called a nice day.” Obviously, this is a pro-environmentalist sticker designed to make us feel guilty about using oil for energy. Ironically it is stuck to a car that is running off gasoline and thus using the very oil that the bumper sticker mocks. Again, a major internal contradiction. It would make more sense of this sticker was attached to a bicycle. In addition, one should note that the van driver seems more concerned about the environment than the lives of human beings in the womb. This is the same reason our culture for the last few weeks is enraged about Cecil the Lion but relatively silent about the release of the Planned Parenthood videos.

5. “If the people lead the leaders will follow.” This is a modified version of a quote that was attributed to Gandhi. On one level its true. Leaders tend to respond to the wishes of their constituency. Then again, today we are in desperate need of leaders who are willing to do what is right, regardless of whether it is popular.

6. “Adoption a beautiful choice.” We certainly agree that adoption is a wonderful thing. But, notice the word “choice” tacked on the end. For this individual, it doesn’t matter if a person choose abortion or chooses adoption. Both are equally viable. That is tantamount to saying that it doesn’t matter if one takes a life or saves a life, it’s the same thing. Again, an incoherent worldview.

7. “It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.” I am not going to enter the fray over public school funding. But, I wonder if Reagan could have ended the cold war with the philosophy of this bumper sticker. Moreover, it should be acknowledged that it is only because America has bought many, many bombers of the years (from World War II to the Cold War and beyond) that this individual has the freedom to speak about such things on the bumper of their car.

In the end, this individual has a worldview, but it proves to be an incoherent and inconsistent one. This is a reminder that Christians today need to not only explain and defend the Christian worldview, but need to challenge the non-Christian worldview. We need to be on offense, not just on defense. Although the non-Christian worldview might seem like a steady structure on the outside, we can have confidence that it won’t hold up under closer scrutiny.

Last week I finished a key portion of one of my research projects. And then I did what I normally do during such times (indeed, it is coming a bit of a tradition)–I cleaned up the colossal mess that I had made.

Before it was all said and done, books were strewn all over my desk, across my computer table, on the floor (on both sides of my desk), and up against the wall.

My wife stopped by the office with the kids and was so aghast at the chaos that she snapped the picture below and sent it out on Twitter.

After I had finally cleaned up my desk–and returned a couple of cart fulls of books to the library–I began to reflect on my life with a messy desk. What did it mean, if anything? Most likely, it means that I am just disorganized and absentminded–like many other professors.

But, as I looked at the picture, I found a sense of joy in the chaos of my office. It reminded me of what I love about being a professor of biblical studies–the joy of learning and discovering the endless treasures that God has for us in his Word, and in the world that he has made. The messy desk was (to me at least) a sign of how thrilling theological study can be. The stacks of books were a symbol of the creative intellectual potential God has given each of us.

Of course, many in the church today have lost the passion for serious intellectual pursuit of the Christian faith. Indeed, in many circles, such intellectual pursuits are viewed critically and suspiciously. Academically-minded people are all head and no heart, one might think. Sure, they love ideas but they don’t really love people.

But, the Scriptures themselves (not to mention the history of the church) are not willing to draw such a sharp dichotomy between mind and heart. Christ called us to love the Lord our God with both our heart and our mind.

Even more, Christians throughout the ages–particularly in the time of the Reformation–viewed serious intellectual engagement as a way to glorify God. Although Christianity was available (and understandable) for even the uneducated, it was deep enough and robust enough for the most sophisticated philosopher.

After a little snooping around the internet, I was encouraged to see two intellectual giants of the 20th century–J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis–both had messy desks. And their intellectual achievements went beyond the stodgy halls of academia, but affected the hearts of millions through their fictional works.

Even in the non-Christian world, a messy desk is often associated with a love of learning. Albert Einstein once said, “If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what, then, is an empty desk a sign?”

As I think especially about pastors today, my hope is that when parishioners enter their study they would see a desk piled high with books. And that those parishioners would know that their pastor is a thinker, has a passion for the Word, and is eager to pursue God with his mind, as well as his heart.

Of course, there are some pastors out there–rare though they may be–who love books and still find a way to have a clean desk. Well, if that’s you, then well done. You are neater than the rest of us.

But, if you had left the books on your desk, you would’ve had even more time for study.

Much has been said about Planned Parenthood over the last few weeks due to the release of numerous behind-the-scenes videos. These videos have revealed what Christians have known (and said) for years, namely that abortion is one of the most barbaric, callous, and tragic practices of the modern world.

Hidden behind sanitized words like “fetus” and “tissue donation” and “scientific research” is the unthinkable reality that Planned Parenthood “doctors” are chopping up living babies in order to sell their body parts on the open market.

So, what could possibly be said in defense of PP’s activities? Incredibly, some people have tried to make a defense. And what is fascinating is to observe how inadequate (or even irrelevant) such defenses turn out to be. Let’s just examine a few of them:

1. Planned Parenthood does other good things. This is an example of a “change the subject” defense. In order to deflect attention away from the killing of babies, PP advocates point out how they also provide general healthcare like mammograms and STD testing.

However, there are numerous problems with this response. First, PP does not manage a single licensed mammogram facility in the United States. Not even one. Their main industry is, and always has been, abortion. Second, this defense is not actually a defense at all because it never addresses the main issue. The question is still on the table: does PP, in fact, kill babies and harvest their parts? If so, then it doesn’t matter what other good things it might do. Such things cannot overturn, nor should they cause us to ignore, the unthinkable practices they are engaged in.

2. The videos have been heavily edited. This response is legion among PP supporters, with the help of a complicit media. Of course, technically they are right. Of course the videos are edited. They are too long to show all at once. But, that is true of any lengthy video clip that needs to be shown on TV or the internet. The key issue is whether the video has been edited in such a way that it distorts the message. Given that the full videos are available for anyone to watch, why doesn’t PP just show alternative clips that prove their side of the story? Notice that they have not done this. And there is a reason for that. It cannot be done. Regardless of how many minutes you watch, the message is the same.

3. Planned Parenthood is not making any money. This, again, is a “change the subject” defense, and it simply doesn’t work. First, it is doubtful whether this claim is true. In the most recent video, there is even haggling over prices (see here). But, even it the claim is true, it is entirely irrelevant. Is murdering babies only a problem if someone makes money doing it? If they murder babies and make no money, is it then alright? The absolute absurdity of such an argument is its own refutation.

4. Fetal tissue is being used for important scientific research. The PP website even tries to pull on the heartstrings when they say, “The opportunity to donate fetal tissue has been a source of comfort for many women who have chosen to donate.” But, what they don’t mention is that these so-called organ donors–the babies–are alive when the organs are harvested! Its not the mothers who “donate” these body parts, its the babies themselves–at the cost of their own lives. What if we went around killing 8-year-olds for body parts? Would that be acceptable simply under the guise of scientific research? This defense is so bad, that it is tragic that so many people are falling for it.

These are just four examples, of the many flawed arguments used to defend PP. But, I want to point out something very important. Notice what is not being offered as a defense.

Planned Parenthood never says anywhere that they are not actually cutting up babies and selling their parts.

Rather they are saying such actions are justified because we don’t make money doing it, or because it used for science, or because we do other things that are good.

Most people who are accused of murder say, “I didn’t do it.” Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, simply says “We are doing it, but its not murder.” Thus, they have never denied killing babies. And that is a stunning silence that should not be missed.

This raises the question of how a country could get to the place where not only this is allowed, but is funded by federal tax dollars.

I am reminded of the way the world looked at the German people after the Holocaust had ended. The issue was not just how the Nazis could commit such unthinkable atrocities. The issue was how the entire German nation could stand by and watch it happen and do nothing.

Of course, there were some in Germany who fought against the Nazis. And there are some (thankfully) in America that fight against abortion. But, America, as a whole, is turning a blind eye.

Someday, I believe the abortion practice will eventually end. And when it does, it is sad to think they will look back into these generations of our country and ask, How could the entire nation stand by and watch it happen and do nothing?

As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said,

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.

Note: I post the article below every year as seminary students arrive. I hope it will prove helpful for a new crop of readers (or maybe even prior ones!)

In another month or so, a new crop of seminary students will begin the grueling month-long experience of Summer Greek. And, like all seminary students before them, they will begin to ask the question of why studying these ancient languages even matters. After all, a few years after graduation all will be forgotten. In the midst of a busy pastoral life, who could possibly maintain proficiency in the languages?

As a result of these questions, some students decide (very early on) that the biblical languages are just something to be endured. They are like a hazing ritual at a college fraternity. No one likes it, but you have to go through it to be in the club. And then it will be over.

Behind this “take your medicine” approach to the biblical languages are a couple of assumptions that need to be challenged. First, the characterization of pastoral ministry as somehow incompatible with the languages (due to busyness, or other causes), is an unfortunate misunderstanding of what a pastorate is all about. No doubt, pastors should be busy shepherding their flock, meeting with ministry leaders, and running the church. But, the core of the calling is to be a “minister of the word.”

And if the pastoral call is to be a minister of the Word, then there is a significant component of pastoral life that should be devoted to serious study of the biblical text—beyond just the preparation for that week’s sermon. Put differently, pastors should continue to be students. They need to be readers, thinkers, and theologians.

Unfortunately many modern pastors do not view themselves this way. This is evidenced by the language used to describe the place a pastor works at the church. In prior generations, it used to be called the pastor’s “study” (because that is what he did in there!). Now, it is called the pastor’s “office” (because pastors view themselves more as a CEO).

One of my biggest disappointments is when I go into a pastor’s office and see that there are no (or very few) books. It is like going into a carpenter’s shop and seeing no tools. I remind such pastors of the words of Cicero: “A room without books is like a body without a soul.”

If pastors recover their calling as ministers of the Word, then keeping up with the biblical languages should be a more natural part of their weekly activity. If they work in a “study” instead of an “office” then studying might just come more easily.

But, there is a second assumption behind the “take your medicine” approach to the biblical languages. Many students assume that the study of the languages is useless if the specifics are forgotten at a later point. Indeed, this may be the biggest assumption in the mind of today’s seminary students.

This assumption, however, is profoundly mistaken. Even if a student forgets every single vocabulary word and every verb paradigm, the intensive study of the languages during seminary still plays an enormously significant role. Put simply, it helps students think textually.

Prior to learning the languages, most of us simply do not know how to think on a textual level when it comes to studying the Scripture. But after learning Greek or Hebrew (even if we forget it), we now understand grammar, syntax, logical flow, and sentence structure. Moreover, we understand the way words work, how their meaning is determined (or not determined), the importance of context, and the avoidance of certain exegetical fallacies.

These factors alone are incredibly important for proper interpretation of the text and preparation of a sermon. And they are drilled into our heads when we take the biblical languages—even if we forget them later.

So, students and pastors should be encouraged. There are good reasons to think you can retain your knowledge of the languages, if your role as “minister of the Word” is properly understood. But, even if you don’t, many of the benefits still remain.

Not only is it a joy to watch seminary students graduate and head out into ministry, it is also a joy when they return to do ministry in the city of Charlotte. On such occasions, we are able to witness their ministries firsthand as they labor in our very own city.

Such is the case with Mantle Nance (class of 2010). This past year, Mantle has returned to Charlotte to take the pastorate of Ballantyne Presbyterian Church, an important ARP congregation in the city of Charlotte.

In addition, Mantle really exemplifies the model of Pastor-Scholar. A Pastor-Scholar is someone who serves in ordained ministry but is also pursuing scholarly studies in a more sustained manner (see prior post here). Mantle is working on his Ph.D. through Highland College and the University of Aberdeen.

1. What are you currently doing?

I am the Senior Minister at Ballantyne Presbyterian Church in Charlotte. I am also working on a PhD in historical theology from the University of Aberdeen through Highland Theological College. The working title of my thesis is “The Adorable Trinity: The Trinitarianism of Old Columbia Seminary (1828-1927).”

2. Why did you originally come to RTS Charlotte?

When I was a senior at Furman University, I took a South Carolina History class in which I wrote a research paper on a Presbyterian minister named John Lafayette Girardeau and his ministry to the slaves in antebellum Charleston. My research led me to a book titled Preachers with Power: Four Stalwarts of the South by Dr. Douglas Kelly. Over subsequent years, I was richly blessed by reading other works by Dr. Kelly and listening to his sermons. Then, in God’s providence, I got to know Dr. Kelly through the Grandfather Mountain Highland Games, where I discovered that I am distantly related to Dr. Kelly by marriage on my mother’s side of the family! Thus, my primary motivation for coming to RTS-Charlotte was to study with Dr. Kelly. It also meant I would be close to extended family (I am from Elkin, NC).

3. Is there one thing that you learned at RTS that has come back to you as you have ministered to others? A phrase, encouragement or advice?

I was privileged to serve as Dr. John Oliver’s TA, and one of the many Dr. Oliver phrases that stuck with me is the “primacy of preaching.” There are a lot of expectations that people (both within and without the church) can place on a minister, so maintaining the “primacy of preaching” is essential for the health of a church (and the sanity of the minister!).

4. What do you enjoy most about your current ministry?

Along with the joys of being a Minister of Word and Sacrament (with our Associate Minister Alan Gay, a fellow RTS-C alumnus), I most enjoy the refreshing fellowship of the saints at Ballantyne.

5. What has been a struggle in your ministry?

On more than one occasion my wife has reminded me of a quote by another pastor’s wife, Ruth Bell Graham. Mrs. Graham said that to be successful in ministry you need to “pray for a tough hide and a tender heart.” Looking back, I see many times in ministry where, to my shame, I’ve had a tender hide and a tough heart — where I have been too sensitive about what others thought or said about me and, largely because of that, not sensitive enough to real needs that others were facing. Having a tender hide drains my energy (for the Lord, my family, and the church) and is completely counter-productive; having a tough heart is completely un-Christlike! So, by God’s grace, I’m learning, more and more each day, my need to “pray for a tough hide and a tender heart,” for that is a combination only the Spirit of Jesus can create.

6. If you could give any encouragement to a current student in seminary, what would it be?

Don’t waste it! It is often tempting to focus on the end goal of having a degree and being ordained, but the proc

1) Attend the prayer meeting Dr. Kelly hosts in his office each week. This was one of the highlights for me. Many of the guys who attended this when I was a student continue to share prayer requests with one another and pray for each other’s ministries, etc. 2) Get plugged in to a local church where you can be refreshed by the Lord’s people and the means of grace and where you can also be an encouragement to the saints. Being a faithful church member is an essential compliment to your seminary studies, and it is a prerequisite for being a faithful minister.

Even though most Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, very few can give an articulate answer for how Christians know this to be true. We believe it, but we are not sure why we believe it.

Of course, the average non-Christian critic out there is quick to pounce on this problem. “Christians have no reliable basis for knowing whether the Bible is God’s Word,” they might say. “You Christians can believe it if you want to, but you have no grounds for believing it. You are believing it without a reason.”

This lecture was designed to explain one way (and, arguably, the primary way) that believers know that the Bible is God’s Word, namely from the attributes and characteristics present in the Bible itself. Put simply, I argue (along with many others throughout church history) that the Bible bears evidence within itself of its own divine origins.

This is what we mean when we say that the Bible is self-authenticating.

Such a claim raises a number of questions in people’s minds: What exactly are these attributes present in Scripture? If they are really there, then why don’t more people acknowledge them? Isn’t this sort of claim just a form of subjectivism? And, has anyone else in church history taken this approach?

If you share these questions, then I encourage you to download my TGC lecture here. Update: And here is the handout: TGC Self Authenticating Handout. Or you can just listen now:

In this installment, we interview Alex Mark (class of 2013). Alex embodies many values of RTS Charlotte, but we particularly appreciate his work in the area of church planting. Here at RTS Charlotte we believe that the church, the bride of Christ, is the best way to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Even more than this, Alex places a special emphasis on the preaching of the Word. If a church is going to be the key instrument in spreading the gospel, then it must implement the key means that God has ordained to accomplish that task: preaching. It’s not fashionable to make preaching a priority in our modern world, but we believe it is a key example of how God uses “what is weak in the world to shame the strong” (1 Cor 1:27).

1. What are you currently doing?

Immediately after I graduated from RTS Charlotte in 2013, my family and I moved to my hometown of Beaufort, South Carolina to start a new church. We worked with a core group of 33 individuals from Beaufort who initially began the process of starting an independent church. After my first year there, we became a PCA church plant in Palmetto Presbytery (www.firstscotsbeaufort.org), and have been wonderfully encouraged by God’s grace as we have grown and made an impact for Christ in our community over the past two years.

2. Why did you originally come to RTS?

Though I did consider and research other seminary options, I kept coming back to RTS Charlotte as the place I wanted and needed to be. Each of the professors are godly men, and the pastor-scholar approach was exactly what I knew I needed.

Perhaps the biggest reason I came to RTS Charlotte was Dr. Douglas Kelly, who was my pastor and mentor for four years prior to coming to Charlotte. I can’t begin to list all that I learned from him, but his deepest impact on me typically came when the two of us were on our knees in his weekly prayer meeting. We still talk regularly, and I am always grateful for opportunities to sit at his feet (even over the telephone).

3. Is there one thing that you learned at RTS that has come back to you as you have ministered to others? A phrase, encouragement or advice?

It’s hard to distill three years of training into one or two thoughts. I refer back to my class notes from RTS regularly, and I have a few particular statements that resonate in my head. More than anything, it was the overarching RTS philosophy that our studies aren’t separate from loving God and people; they are some of the means through which we love God and people. Oftentimes in ministry, the most help that I have been able to give people has been through unpacking deep theological truths as a balm to their hurting souls.

4. What do you enjoy most about your current ministry?

I cannot imagine enjoying a ministry more than I have enjoyed being at First Scots. This church offers me a wonderful balance of small group discipleship and a tremendous emphasis on preaching God’s Word. I often have opportunities to teach or preach 3-4 times per week, and my time preparing for those messages continues to grow richer and richer.

5. What has been a struggle in your ministry?

As a solo-staff church planter in a small town, it seems that the opportunities are endless. For me, the biggest struggle has been to choose the best of those opportunities while not getting bogged down by less important things. The “tyranny of the urgent” often wins if I am not careful. It has caused me to continually examine my priorities to ensure that I neither worship my job nor become married to it. God and my wife alone deserve those two things!

6. If you could give any encouragement to a current student in seminary, what would it be?

Don’t waste it! It is often tempting to focus on the end goal of having a degree and being ordained, but the process is as important as the end result. One day, others will profit from the thousands of hours you invested studying theology, practical ministry, and the Bible. Don’t waste your opportunity and don’t short-change your flock!

There is a (seemingly) never-ending debate amongst theologians and pastors about the proper form of government for the church. For generations, Christians have disagreed about what leadership structure the church ought to use. From the bishop-led Anglicans to the informal Brethren churches, there is great diversity.

And one of the fundamental flash points in this debate is the practice of the early church. What form of government did the earliest Christians have? Of course, early Christian polity is a vast and complex subject with many different issues in play. But, I want to focus in upon a narrow one: Were the earliest churches ruled by a plurality of elders or a single bishop?

Now it needs to be noted from the outset that by the end of the second century, most churches were ruled by a single bishop. For whatever set of reasons, monepiscopacy had won the day. Many scholars attribute this development to Ignatius (pictured above).

But, what about earlier? Was there a single-bishop structure in the first and early second century?

The New Testament evidence itself seems to favor a plurality of elders as the standard model. The book of Acts tells us that as the apostles planted churches, they appointed “elders” (from the Greek term πρεσβυτέρος) to oversee them (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17). Likewise, Titus is told to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5).

A very similar word, ἐπι,σκoπος (“bishop” or “overseer”), is used in other contexts to describe what appears to be the same ruling office (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-7). The overlap between these two terms is evident in Acts 20:28 when Paul, while addressing the Ephesian “elders” (πρεσβυτέρους), declares that “The Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους).” Thus, the New Testament writings indicate that the office of elder/bishop is functionally one and the same.

But, what about the church after the New Testament? Did they maintain the model of multiple elders? Three quick examples suggest they maintained this structure at least for a little while:

1. At one point, the Didache addresses the issue of church government directly, “And so, elect for yourselves bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, gentle men who are not fond of money, who are true and approved” (15.1). It is noteworthy that the author mentions plural bishops—not a single ruling bishop—and that he places these bishops alongside the office of deacon, as Paul himself does (e.g., Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-13). Thus, as noted above, it appears that the bishops described here are essentially equivalent to the office of “elder.”

2. A letter known as 1 Clement (c.96) also has much to say about early church governance. This letter is attributed to a “Clement”—whose identity remains uncertain—who represents the church in Rome and writes to the church at Corinth to deal with the fallout of a recent turnover in leadership. The author is writing to convince (not command) the Corinthians to reinstate its bishops (elders) who were wrongly deposed. The letter affirms the testimony of the book of Acts when it tells us that the apostles initially appointed “bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons” in the various churches they visited (42.4). After the time of the apostles, bishops were appointed “by other reputable men with the entire church giving its approval” (44.3). This is an echo of the Didache which indicated that bishops were elected by the church.

3. The Shepherd of Hermas (c.150) provides another confirmation of this governance structure in the second century. After Hermas writes down the angelic vision in a book, he is told, “you will read yours in this city, with the presbyters who lead the church” (Vis. 8.3).Here we are told that the church leadership structure is a plurality of “presbyters” (πρεσβυτέρων) or elders. The author also uses the term “bishop,” but always in the plural and often alongside the office of deacon (Vis. 13.1; Sim. 104.2).

In sum, the NT texts and texts from the early second century indicate that a plurality of elders was the standard structure in the earliest stages. But, as noted above, the idea of a singular bishop began to dominate by the end of the second century.

What led to this transition? Most scholars argue that it was the heretical battles fought by the church in the second century that led them to turn to key leaders to defend and represent the church.

This transition is described remarkably well by Jerome himself:

The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . . Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord (Comm. Tit. 1.7).

Jerome’s comments provide a great summary of this debate. While the single-bishop model might have developed for practical reasons, the plurality of elders model seems to go back to the very beginning.

Since I am a professor at a seminary, it is not unusual (indeed, it is very common) for students to come to me for advice about whether they should enter the pastorate or seek to be a professor. While many of these students may have entered seminary with the intention of entering pastoral ministry, they have found themselves falling in love with a deep study of theology and the Bible. And so, they think, perhaps the academic world is right for them.

I confess that I am often torn when students come to me with this question. On the one hand, I want to discourage students from pursuing the Ph.D./professor route. In addition to the fact that Ph.D. work is far more rigorous (and costly) than they think, there is a great need for solid, bible-centered preachers/pastors today. The more solid folks in the pulpit the better.

On the other hand, we also need good seminary professors. Indeed, it is these professors that shape the theology, philosophy, and ethos of the next generation of pastors. Strong seminaries lead to strong churches. Thus, I am always on the look out for the next potential faculty member who can shape these future Christian leaders.

Of course, in the midst of such discussions, it is important to remember that the these two choices–professor or pastor–are not polar opposites. On the contrary, there is tremendous overlap between them (when conceived rightly). So, I thought it might be helpful to sketch out a spectrum of options between the world of pastors and professors. And not surprisingly, I will do this by using a chiastic-style structure (!):

1. The Pastor. This category includes your average Reformed pastor who is theologically-trained, understands the importance of academics, but is not engaged in any meaningful study/research beyond weekly sermon prep. This individual does not degrade or downplay the importance of theology/academics, but simply doesn’t engage much with those subjects himself.

2. The Pastor-Scholar. This individual has an interest in theological and scholarly issues that goes beyond the average pastor mentioned above. Thus, he is often engaged in serious reading, study, and academic work that goes beyond weekly sermon prep. And such study often informs his ministry, preaching, leadership, and counseling. He is the type of individual that would probably work hard to retain some level of proficiency in Greek-Hebrew even after many years in the pastoral ministry.

3. The Pastor-Scholar who is active in scholarly world. This pastor shares the same deep interest in scholarly issues as the pastor-scholar in the above category, but takes it to the next level by actively contributing to the scholarly world in some fashion. This may include writing books, articles, or giving papers/lectures at conferences and gatherings. Such an individual will often have a Ph.D. or other sort of degree beyond the M.Div.

4. The Scholar-Pastor who is active in the church. Notice the terms “scholar” and “pastor” have now been flipped. This word order change indicates that this individual is a full-time professor/academic with a Ph.D., but is still very much engaged with the local church and with pastoral ministry. This individual is certainly ordained and may, in addition to his faculty duties, have some sort of part-time pastoral position at his church. He is actively engaged in teaching and preaching within an ecclesiastical setting.

5. The Scholar-Pastor. This individual is a full-time professor and has a real heart for the church and for pastoral ministry, but is not as actively engaged in it himself. He may be ordained, but he is not on the pastoral staff of any local congregation and probably only preaches occasionally. The main thing that defines this individual is that he gears his academic work towards the church. The church (and pastors) is his primary audience.

6. The Scholar. This individual is what one might call a pure scholar. He is interested primarily in the specifics of his academic field, and has only a secondary interest in how it might impact or be used in the church. He is probably not ordained, and does not really engage in regular ministry in the local church (beyond that of any normal member). The primary audience for his writing/research is his academic peers.

With this spectrum in mind, it becomes readily obvious that there is not a simple choice between either pastor or scholar, but a gradated list of options in between (and this list is not exhaustive). This should be a refreshing realization for some who feel the pull towards both pastoral ministry and scholarship. There are many options above that allow a person to contribute to both worlds.

This gradation also explains why some individuals often bounce back and forth between pulpit callings and academic callings. It is easy to see how a given person might be #3 at one point in his life, and #4 at another (and maybe then back again!).

But, even with these qualifications, an individual still has to decide which of these six areas best represent his calling–at least at the current moment. And the most obvious part of this decision is whether a person is a full-time pastor (with a scholarly bent), or a full-time professor (with a pastoral bent).

My students often ask me why I chose the latter. The answer to that question is complex, but I think the words of Scottish minister and professor Thomas Chalmers (pictured above) capture it well. In a letter dated June 17, 1825, Chalmers explains why he left the pulpit to become a professor (and why he declines the regular invitations to return to the pulpit):

It was not upon light grounds that I relinquished the clerical for the professorial life; and I am more and more confirmed in the belief that a chair in a college is a higher station on the field of Christian usefulness, than a parish anywhere in Scotland. Could one acquit himself rightly of his duties as a professor, it is incalculable the good which might be done to the guides and the clergy of our next generation.

Simply put, Chalmers was convinced that his role as a professor would allow him to have a bigger impact on the future of the church. Investing in a single congregation is a worthy and godly endeavor. But, Chalmers recognized the opportunity to be a professor would allow him to (effectively) invest in hundreds of congregations through the ministers he trained.

Chalmers is not to be misunderstood here. He is not saying that professors are more important than pastors. He is simply saying that he took the opportunity that God gave him to impact the church on a larger scale.

And given the state of our world today, Chalmers’ words still ring true. We need good pastors more than ever. And thus we need good seminary professors to train them.

There has been a lot of chatter the last few weeks about Rachel Dolezal, civil rights activist and the former head of the NAACP in Spokane, WA. Although she presented herself as African American–a bit of a prerequisite for heading up a chapter of the NAACP–it turns out that she is not black after all. Indeed she was a blonde, freckle-faced white girl born to two white parents. She has merely changed her outward appearance.

Of course, objective facts regarding biology, genetics, and ethnicity have not proven to be a deterrent to Dolezal’s insistence that she is black. “I identify as black,” she told Matt Lauer. In other words, I get to decide what is true. Reality is what I make it.

Many have pointed out the similarities between Dolezal’s case and that of Bruce Jenner and his declarations that he is now a woman. And the comparison has been (rightly) used to expose how intellectually vacuous the transgender cause really is. One cannot determine their own gender any more than a person can determine their own race. “Can the Ethiopan change his skin or a leopard his spots?” (Jer 13:23).

But, there is more going on here. And we have to be careful not to miss it. What is happening with Dolezal should not be viewed as just a rebuke of transgenderism (although it is). It is also a rebuke of the entire postmodern project of our Western culture over the last 50 years.

Dolezal is simply acting out the worldview she has learned from the Western culture within which she was raised.

No doubt she has heard, from her earliest days, that there is no objective truth. She has probably been told (repeatedly) that there are no absolute realities “out there” beyond ourselves. Over and over she has gotten the message that truth is simply a construct of the self.

And these messages probably didn’t come from her parents. They likely came from broader influences. TV shows have reminded her that her own feelings are what matters most. Pop culture has convinced her that she has to be “true to herself.” Musical lyrics have called her to a life of “authenticity”–which simply means live a life that makes you feel good and meets your personal needs.

In other words, the voices around her, for 37 years, have given her one clear message: you determine your own reality.

So, who can blame her for just living consistently with what she was taught?

Well, it turns out, just about everyone. The very culture that taught her that truth is relative has now turned on her. What it gave to her with one hand, it has taken away with the other.

And it is here that the Rachel Dolezal story exposes the silliness and the absurdity of postmodernity, and its accompanying commitment to relativism. It shows–perhaps more clearly than any other recent example–that postmodernity simply doesn’t work. It shows that we can’t create our own realities after all. We can’t make something true just because we want it to be. Any person with common sense simply knows that saying you are black doesn’t make you black.

Or, as Lev Grossman said in book NY Times best-seller The Magicians, “If there’s a single lesson that life teaches us, it’s that wishing doesn’t make it so.”

But, the Rachel Dolezal story reveals more than this. It not only shows that postmodernity is false, it shows that it is deeply and inherently hypocritical.

Postmoderns claim one thing, and yet do another. They say there is no absolute truth, but, when push comes to shove, they concede there is absolute truth after all. They pretend like reality is a construct of the self, but it turns out they don’t really live like that.

That’s why Bruce Jenner can be called a courageous hero, and, at the same time, Rachel Dolezal can be lambasted as a heretic. Postmoderns are comfortable saying people get to determine our own truth–but only when its convenient.

All of this simply reveals what the cultural elites have always known (but won’t admit), namely that they are inevitably selective about the way they apply their relativism.

When it comes to who a person sleeps with, they are relativists. When it comes to evidence in a criminal trial, they are not. When it comes to sexual identity, they are relativists. When it comes to global warming, they are not. When it comes to gender identity, they are relativists. But, unfortunately for Dolezal, when it comes to race identity, they are not. Or at least not yet.

And there is a reason for such (obvious) inconsistency. No person could really live as if reality were entirely determined by ourselves. Such individuals will always, and inevitably, keep bumping into the real world. And the real world has an irritating habit of not getting out of the way.

This hypocrisy–which is inherent to postmodernity–tells us something very important. It tells us that we humans make lousy gods. That’s what postmodernity is, after all. It is the human attempt to be god. It is the human attempt to control our own reality and determine our own truth.

But, in the end, we fail miserably. We just can’t pull it off. Our hypocrisy shows that we are only fake gods. Bad fakes.

And, as fake gods, our own “creations” are fake too. Bruce Jenner has tried to make himself a woman, but he is just a fake woman. Rachel Dolezal has tried to make herself black. But she is a fake black.

Postmodernity, then, has led to a culture of fakeness. That is the only kind of culture a fake god can create. We stride around proclaiming ourselves to be the lord of our private universes. We put on a good show. But, in the end, we are frauds.

We are like the man behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz. We project a facade of power and control. But, in the end, we are weak, scared, and hiding.

We have to recognize, therefore, that the postmodern project, at its core, did not start fifty years ago. It started at the initial fall of Adam and Eve when they took of the fruit because they wanted to “be like God” (Gen 3:5).

The only solution is for humans to abandon the quest to be God; to abandon the quest to make our own reality. The only things that aren’t fake are things that the true God has made. And God made Bruce Jenner a man. And God made Rachel Dolezal white. “And God saw that it was good” (Gen 1:9).

In prior posts, I have already mentioned my wife’s excellent new book, Walking with God in the Season of Motherhood (Waterbrook, 2015). As an 11-week Bible study for moms, it is really something unique. There are many books for moms. And there are many Bible studies. But, Melissa’s new book combines both together.

I was excited to see that Melissa’s book was highlighted on the NBC morning show here in Charlotte. Although it is not a Christian program, they asked her to come talk about how to think about being a mom during the summer months when the kids are out of school. You can watch the clip by clicking on the screen shot below:

Also, here is another excellent interview about her new book with the Focus Today program on Dove TV:

When religious matters are debated in our culture–e.g., the existence of God, what God is like, morals and ethics–there is an implicit set of rules that everyone is obligated to follow. Number one on this list of unspoken rules it that you can never claim to know anything about God with any level of certainty.

To do so quickly leads to charges of being arrogant, dogmatic, or intolerant. Christians know this all too well because we are often on the receiving end of these charges. Our claim to actually know things about God is a violation of the rules of polite society.

Of course, this sort of “polite society” is a rather new invention. In prior generations, such claims would not have been ruled out of bounds from the outset. There may have been disagreements over such claims. There may have been debate about whether such claims could be justified. But, the claims themselves were not regarded as inadmissible.

But in our postmodern world things have changed. Any claim to actually know one’s religious beliefs are true is regarded as a violation of the rules of intellectual inquiry. Such things simply cannot be know, we are told, regardless of whether they are true. As human beings we do not have access to knowledge outside our own self-constructed realities. Thus, to claim such knowledge is to be uninformed or arrogant (or both).

But, it is precisely this assumption–namely that humans don’t have access to knowledge outside themselves–that needs to be challenged. Indeed, the tables need to be turned. How does the average postmodern individual know that knowledge works like this? How does he know that reliable knowledge of God is impossible to attain?

After all, these are not modest claims. They are enormous, far-reaching, all-encompassing epistemological claims. The postmodern individual is, in essence, claiming that every single religious person on the planet who claims to have knowledge of God is flat out wrong. They are deluded. They are mistaken. All of them. Such knowledge just isn’t possible.

But, again, how does the postmodern individual know this? If all they have access to is their own self-constructed realities (as they have claimed), then they have no basis to make such sweeping claims about all other religious systems. Indeed, one might even say that to make such a dogmatic claim, while chiding others for making dogmatic claims, is the epitome of arrogance.

This is precisely the problem with the well-worn analogy that all religions are like blind men feeling different parts of an elephant. As the blind men try to determine what an elephant is like, one feels the trunk and says, “An elephant is like a snake!” Another feels the tail and says, “An elephant is like a rope!” Another feels a leg and says, “An elephant is like a tree trunk!” And so, the argument goes, they are all right because they are only seeing part of the truth.

The core problem with the elephant analogy is that the person using the analogy is assuming that they themselves are not blind! The person using the analogy is basically saying, “Let me tell you how all religions really work.” But that is an enormous (and arrogant!) claim that requires near-omniscient knowledge. How would this person know how all religions work? And why should this person be exempt from the very analogy they just gave?

Of course, Christians also make grand, sweeping truth claims. There is no denying that. But, there is a fundamental and essential difference. Christians don’t make exclusive claims on the basis of their own knowledge, but on the basis of Christ’s knowledge (revealed in his Word). If he is the very Son of God, it is reasonable to trust what he says about the way religion works. There is nothing arrogant about that.

Not surprisingly, the postmodern individual will reject the Bible as divine revelation and will thus maintain that the Christian is still arrogant. But, this misses the point entirely. The question still remains: who has better grounds for making all-encompassing truth claims, the postmodern individual who denies one can have knowledge outside himself, or the Christian who at least purports to have access to divine revelation?

To put it simply, if a person is going to make absolute, all-encompassing truth claims, they better have access to some source of knowledge that is absolute and all-encompassing. And, of course, this is the very thing that the postmodern individual lacks.

James Anderson, Associate Professor of Theology and Philosophy here at RTS Charlotte, has recently written an excellent piece on this very topic. He sums up the issue well:

All this to say, the Christian position is that all knowledge of God comes through divine revelation (either general/natural or special/supernatural) and divine revelation is by its very nature a free and gracious act of God. (I’ll register but not defend here my conviction that the Reformed tradition has emphasized and developed this point more than any other stream of historic Christianity.) Knowledge of God is far from being the exclusive property of those who have exercised their natural intellectual abilities better than their peers (cf. Luke 10:21).

So is it arrogant to claim to know God? Does claiming to know the will of God fly in the face of humility? Not necessarily. It all depends on how that knowledge is thought to be acquired. No doubt according to many religions those who possess knowledge of God have some basis for pride, for they can take partial credit their knowledge. But Christianity isn’t one of those religions.

The interview covered a wide range of topics related to inspiration and inerrancy, particularly last year’s popular blog series by Peter Enns entitled “Aha Moments.” That series highlighted evangelical scholars who have discovered things in their biblical research that have caused them to change their views about inerrancy.

In response, I offered a brief series on my own website entitled “Does the Bible Ever Get it Wrong? Facing Scripture’s Difficult Passages.” I invited a number of prominent evangelical scholars wrote brief posts to deal with some of the issues raised by Enns. While I was hoping to include a few more installments in that series, time has slipped away and a few folks were not able to get to their contribution as planned. Regardless, I include the final installments here:

Dr. Currid is the author of numerous other works, including Against the Gods, Crossway ESV Bible Atlas, and commentaries on every book of the Pentateuch (see description at EV Press). In addition, he is a favorite in the classroom amongst the students at RTS Charlotte.

Here is the description of the NIV Zondervan Study Bible:

The NIV Zondervan Study Bible, featuring Dr. D. A. Carson as general editor, is built on the truth of Scripture and centered on the gospel message. An ambitious and comprehensive undertaking, Dr. Carson, with committee members Dr. T. Desmond Alexander, Dr. Richard S. Hess, Dr. Douglas J. Moo, and Dr. Andrew David Naselli, along with a team of over 60 contributors from a wide range of evangelical denominations and perspectives, crafted all-new study notes and other study tools to present a biblical theology of God’s special revelation in the Scriptures. To further aid the readers’ understanding of the Bible, also included are full-color maps, charts, photos and diagrams. In addition, a single-column setting of the Bible text provides maximum readability.

I recently saw this interesting interview at TGC with my friend Peter Williams. Peter is a biblical scholar and the CEO of Tyndale House in Cambridge, England–a study center for evangelical scholars. I spent my sabbatical at Tyndale House in 2009 and had a delightful time.

Psalm 119 is an amazing Psalm. Not only is it the longest Psalm (176 verses!), but it is also the Psalm that deals the most directly with the topic of Scripture. Virtually every verse, in one way or another, refers to God’s Word.

David (who is most likely the author) uses a variety of terminology to describe God’s Word: commandments, law, statutes, precepts, ordinances, rules, words, testimonies, etc. These all refer to the Scriptures as they existed in David’s day (essentially the Pentateuch).

Thus, Psalm 119 is one of the best examples of Scripture speaking about Scripture. It is the Word about the Word.

And in it, we find David interacting with the Word of God in five ways that should be paradigmatic for all believers:

1. Trusting the Word of God. Time and time again, David expresses his belief that the Scriptures are true (v.151). He believes in them (v.66). He trusts in their reliability (v.42). He states: “The sum of your word is truth” (v.160).

This first step is key. If a believer doesn’t really regard the Word of God as being fully and entirely trustworthy, then none of the other steps below will follow. This is why the church needs to be quick to deal with the repeated criticisms of the Bible that so often permeate our culture.

2. Studying the Word of God. David doesn’t just believe the Word, he is a student of the Word. He learns it (v.73), he seeks it (v.155), he has memorized it (v.153), and regularly meditates on it.

This step ought to naturally for the follow the first one. If God’s Word really is true, then we ought to commit ourselves to being diligent studiers of the Word. We need to embrace it with our minds, as well as our hearts.

3. Using the Word of God. It’s one thing to believe and know the Word. It is another thing to rely on it. To look to it as a guide during the difficulties and challenges of life. To lean on it for encouragement and hope.

David repeatedly affirms that he uses the Word of God as a “counselor” (v.24), to give “strength” (v.28), and to bring “comfort in affliction” (v.50). He states, “Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (v.105). In short, the Word of God is the very source of life for David (v.156).

This reminds us a very important attribute of God’s Word: it is alive. It is powerful and active. When we talk about the attributes of Scripture we must remember that it is more than just a true book (encyclopedias can be true). It is also a living book. It is the place where the God of the universe meets us and manifests himself.

4. Delighting in the Word of God. What is amazing is that David takes things one step further than we might expect. It’s not just that he trusts, studies, and uses the Word of God. He actually has affection for it. He has a deep emotional affinity towards it.

He “loves” God’s Word (v.159), he “rejoices” at his Word (v.162), the Word is “wondrous” (v.18), it is “better than thousands of gold and silver pieces” (v.72), and “sweeter than honey to my mouth” (v.103).

I am convinced that this is the missing piece for most believers today. For many, the Bible is viewed almost in a utilitarian fashion–it is a mechanical, sterile tool that Christians are supposed to use. It’s like taking your medicine.

In contrast, David has passion, zeal, and excitement for the law and commandments of God. And the reason for this is not hard to find. David loves God’s law not because he is a closet legalist. He loves God’s law because the law reflects God’s own nature and character. He loves God’s law because he loves God–and who God is and what he is like.

Any Christian who says they love God but then despises God’s law is living a life of contradiction. Indeed, they are living a life that is the opposite of Psalm 119. To love God is to love his law.

5. Obeying the Word of God. Not surprisingly, the prior four characteristics naturally lead to this last one. David repeatedly expresses his desire to actually obey God’s law. He wants to follow it, keep it, and fulfill it.

In our world today, the concept of “obeying the law” is not a popular one. Many see this as contrary to grace. However, two things should be kept in mind. One, David is not keeping the law in order to earn salvation–he is obeying out of love for God. He is obeying out of a heart of faith.

Second, we should remember that Jesus himself was very much about “obeying the law.” Before we too quickly despise the concept of law-keeping, we should remember that Jesus delighted in keeping his Father’s law. And he kept it absolutely perfectly–for us. He obeyed on our behalf, and his righteous status is imputed to us by faith.

Indeed, Jesus embodies all five of these characteristics. He trusted, studied, used, delighted in, and obeyed God’s Word. In fact, he did all these things even more than the first David. While David certainly serves as an example of what to do with God’s word, Jesus is the ultimate example. One greater than David has come. And he loved God’s Word.

One of the standard challenges for New Testament textual criticism is whether we can work our way back to the original text. Some scholars are notoriously skeptical in this regard. Since we only have later copies, it is argued, we cannot be sure that the text was not substantially changed in the time period that pre-dates those copies.

Helmut Koester and Bart Ehrman are examples of this skeptical approach. Koester has argued that the text of the New Testament in the earliest stages was notoriously unstable. Most major changes, he argues, would have taken place in the first couple centuries.

Ehrman makes a similar case. Since we don’t have the originals, and only copies of copies of copies, then who knows what the text was really like before our extant copies were made.

But is it really true that we only possess copies of copies of copies? Is there really an enormous gap, as Koester and Ehrman maintain, between the autographs and our earliest copies?

A recent article by Craig Evans of Acadia University suggests otherwise. In the most recent issue of the Bulletin for Biblical Research, Evans explores the question of how long manuscripts would have lasted in the ancient world, and whether that might provide some guidance of how long the autographs might have lasted–and therefore how long they would have been copied.

Evans culls together an insightful and intriguing amount of evidence to suggest that literary manuscripts in the ancient world would last hundreds of years, on average. Appealing to the recent study of G.W. Houston, he argues that manuscripts could last anywhere from 75 to 500 years, with the average being about 150 years.

The implications of this research on the textual stability of the New Testament are not difficult to see. Evans says:

Autographs and first copies may well have remained in circulation until the end of the second century, even the beginning of the third century…The longevity of these manuscripts in effect forms a bridge linking the first-century autographs and first copies to the great codices, via the early papyrus copies we possess (35).

In other words, it is possible (and perhaps even likely) that some of the earliest copies of the New Testament we posses may have been copied directly from one of the autographs. And, if not the autographs, they may have been copied from a manuscript that was directly copied from the autographs. Either way, this makes the gap between our copies and the autographs shrink down to a rather negligible size.

In the end, we do not possess merely copies of copies of copies (etc.) as some skeptics maintain. The early date of our copies, combined with the likely longevity of the autographs, can give us a high degree of confidence that have access to the New Testament text at the earliest possible stage.

If so, then there are no reasons to think that there were wild, unbridled textual changes taking place in this earliest period. On the contrary, Evans’ study provides good reasons to think the NT text was transmitted with a high degree of accuracy and fidelity.

If you want to check out Evans’ full article, see: “How Long Were Late Antique Books in Use? Possible Implications for New Testament Textual Criticism” BBR 25.1 (2015): 23-37.

If you want to dive even deeper into the transmission of the New Testament text, see my recent book (edited with Chuck Hill): The Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 2012).

This last Friday was our annual RTS-Charlotte Senior Banquet. This is an opportunity for graduating seniors to share about what the seminary has meant to them. One of the great encouragements of every calendar year is hearing what amazing experiences our students have had here.

One of our seniors, a man from Kenya, Africa, has been away for his family for four years while he has been in seminary. What an amazing sacrifice. At one point in the evening he said, “One of the greatest things that has happened in my life has happened at RTS.”

Because of their very positive experience at RTS Charlotte, our alumni often prove to be life long supporters of the school. They pray for us, encourage us, keep up with us, and, most importantly, send us new students headed into ministry.

One of those alumni that does all these things (and more) is my friend, David Rea (class of 1999). Even though David graduated before I arrived at RTS Charlotte, over the years he has become a dear friend. Not only is he one of our most avid supporters, but he is a wonderful example of the kind of pastor we are trying to produce. He is theologically sound, word-centered, passionate about preaching, and has a shepherd’s heart.

Originally, I only planned on attending RTS-Charlotte for a semester and then transfer to another seminary. However, my experience at RTS was so rich, encouraging, and transformative, I quickly decided to stay put.

3. Is there one thing that you learned at RTS that has come back to you as you have ministered to others? A phrase, encouragement or advice?

Dr. Cara – and I can still hear it now – always said, “be as balanced as the Bible is balanced.” That phrase (and its implications) has always stayed with me.

4. What do you enjoy most about your current ministry?

Preaching and ministering the Word of God – in a variety of contexts – is my favorite part of pastoral ministry. A close second would be pastoral counseling which I am privileged to do on a regular basis.

5. What has been a struggle in your ministry?

Preaching and teaching – while being a true delight and joy – has also been a tremendous challenge. Every week I am humbled and amazed (truly I am) that Christ would use someone like me to minister His Gospel. In every sermon, by the grace of God, I try to improve as a preacher and communicator of God’s Word.

6. If you could give any encouragement to a current student in seminary, what would it be?

The commitment to full-time vocational ministry in the context of a local church is more challenging than most seminarians can fathom. It certainly has been for me. My challenge and encouragement to seminarians (or even those prayerfully considering seminary) is to ask the pastors, professors, and Christian friends with whom they are close, and whose opinion and judgment they respect, to give honest and unvarnished feedback regarding their giftedness, aptitude, and fitness for ministry. In addition to a perceived sense of calling, it is my view that there needs to be a ministry aptitude – even if it’s in seed form – on the front end.

Here is a fantastic and moving video about David and his experience at RTS:

In my prior post, I argued that the primary argument for why same-sex marriage should be legalized–“it is discriminatory to tell consenting adults who love each other that they cannot get married”–is fatally flawed. On the logic of this argument, virtually any kind of marriage could be justified, including polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage.

In one of the comments on my prior post, there was a link to a fantastic video of Ryan Anderson speaking for the Heritage Foundation. He makes precisely this point and utterly dismantles the argument that denial of same-sex marriage is discrimination.

What is particularly stunning is that the man asking the question in the video is totally unaware of the inconsistency of his argument. Indeed, he just talks in circles, unable to provide a coherent answer to the very simple question of why homosexuals should be granted special rights, but not polygamous or incestuous couples.

When you listen to this exchange, it becomes excruciatingly clear that the debate over same-sex marriage in this country is not being decided (by most people) on the basis of reason or logic. But on the basis of emotion and cultural pressure.

There has been a lot of talk in the last week over the oral arguments presented for and against same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media is presenting the outcome as a foregone conclusion. There are no reasonable or logical reasons to be against it, we are told.

But, there is one main reason to be against same-sex marriage that the mainstream media simply won’t talk about. And it is a reason I’ve mentioned numerous times on this website (e.g., see prior posts here and here), and that many others have also observed.

That reason is simply this: the logic being used to promote same-sex marriage could be used to support a variety of other sexually questionable forms of marriage.

If marriage is just about consenting adults that love each other, then why can’t a mother and her adult son get married? Why can’t an adult brother and adult sister get married? Why can’t a man marry three wives? Or a wife marry three husbands?

As I said in a prior post, “The logic used to justify homosexual marriage is like an acid that will eventually eat its way through every remaining sexual boundary in our culture. And pretty soon, there will be no boundaries.”

This very problem with the same-sex marriage argument was noted by several justices during oral arguments. The mainstream media hasn’t talked much about this, but here is a transcript of the conversation. Bonauto is the lawyer arguing for same-sex marriage and it is clear that she has no coherent answer to this problem. My own comments are embedded in the dialogue in blue.

Justice Samuel Alito: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?

Mary Bonauto: I believe so, Your Honor.

Alito: What would be the reason?

This is the question Bonauto has been dreading…

Bonauto: There’d be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the wait and see question for a moment, if I may. Because—

Notice how irrelevant the first response is: “One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as marriage.” This is a nonsense statement. The whole issue is what logic the State would use to make such a decision. To raise the question of whether the State would is just a diversionary tactic.

The issue of “coercion and consent” is also a red herring. You will notice below that she just repeats this mantra with no explanation for what it means or for how it rules out other forms of marriage. And, as you will see, neither Alito or Scalia even understand what she is trying to say.

How quickly she tries to change the subject shows that she realizes it is a problem for her view.

Alito: Yes. I hope you will come back to mine. If you want to go back to the earlier one –

Bonauto: No, no.

Alito: — then you can come back to mine.

Bonauto: Well, that’s what — I mean, that is — I mean, the State –

Alito: Well, what if there’s no — these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it’s not–it’s not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under–under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?

Alito rightly won’t let this go. On a judicial level, the arguments for same-sex marriage will just lead to future court cases where those wanting polygamist marriage or incest marriage claim their civil rights are being violated.

Bonauto: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental right –

This is incredible. Bonauto actually rejects polygamous marriage on the grounds that “that is not the same thing we’ve had in marriage.” In other words, Bonauto actually appeals to tradition–to the long history of the way marriage has always been. But, this same rationale would lead one to reject same-sex marriage. If we are talking about the history of the institution, then same-sex marriage has no chance.

Alito: But–well, I don’t know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it’s a good one. So this is no — why is that a greater break?

Notice that Alito picks up on the inconsistency of her argument. If the history of marriage is the standard, then that would not only rule out polygamy but same-sex marriage as well. He is clearly confused by her reasoning when he says: “But–well, I don’t know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before.”

Bonauto: The question is one of–again, assuming it’s within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there’s a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there’d be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don’t apply here, when we’re talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that’s my answer on that.

All the talk of the complications over divorce is not a meaningful argument. Divorce laws are always complicated–and yes, could be even more complicated in a polygamous relationship. But, is this really enough for the state to deprive people of their constitutional rights (assuming her own argument for a moment)? If she is correct that consenting adults can define marriage for themselves, then the complications of divorce are not relevant. She is straining out a gnat, but swallowing a camel.

In the end, Bonauto simply does not have a coherent argument for why marriage should be changed for homosexuals, but not changed for polygamist and incestuous individuals.

And this simply shows what everyone has always known: homosexuals want to be able to redefine marriage for themselves, but don’t want to let others redefine marriage. Which means they don’t want equal treatment, they want special treatment.

The critical question that every Christian must be able to answer is “How are people saved?” In the seminary context, the doctrine of salvation (soteriology) is a central feature in the curriculum. Preachers can’t preach a message of salvation if they don’t understand it themselves.

Of course, as an institution that bases its theology on the Reformation (the term “Reformed” is in our name!), Reformed Theological Seminary is committed to the doctrines of grace–the idea that people are sinners who cannot save themselves but desperately need God to save them. On a popular level, this is simply known as Calvinism.

But, of course, not all Christians agree with this Reformed perspective. Throughout the history of the church, there are have been many different perspectives on how a person is saved. So, what is the best way to help Christians understand these various approaches? And what is the most effective way to make the case for Calvinism?

There are many answers to these questions, but there is one resource that I have found tremendously helpful. And it is a resource that is often overlooked and forgotten. And that resource is the five lectures delivered by B.B. Warfield in 1914 at Princeton Theological Seminary.

These lectures are not found in the standard 10 volume collected works of Warfield–and for that reason are often missed. Instead they are found in a little book entitled The Plan of Salvation (Simpson Publishing, 1989).

What makes Warfield’s approach so helpful is that he takes the reader through a series of choices about how God saves–starting with very broad concepts and moving towards more specific concepts. At each point along the way he eliminates the options that just don’t work. Thus, the reader is able to see how theologians have arrived at a belief in Calvinism in a gradual, step by step fashion.

In a sense, Warfield has created a logical “decision tree” that any Christian could follow. Thus, it is an incredibly useful tool for convincing people of the Reformed approach.

Of course, I cannot reproduce Warfield’s entire argument in this blog post. But, here is the outline of his decision tree:

1. Deism vs. Theism: Is God personally involved in our lives (Theism) or does he stand back from the universe and allow it to take its course (Deism)?

Warfield’s answer: Theism.

2. Supernaturalism vs. Naturalism: Given the reality of Theism, the next question is whether man saves himself and works his way to God (Naturalism) or whether God intervenes and saves man (Supernaturalism).

Warfield’s answer: Supernaturalism.

3. Evangelicalism vs. Sacerdotalism: Given the reality of Supernaturalism, the next question is the specific manner in which God saves. Does God save men through an instrument he has appointed like the sacraments (Sacerdotalism) or does he act on people’s souls directly and immediately (Evangelicalism)? Does God use sacraments as an intermediary or he does God operate directly on the human soul by grace?

Warfield’s answer: Evangelicalism.

4. Universalism vs. Particularism: Given the reality of Evangelicalism–that God works on men’s souls directly–the next question is whether he exerts this saving power equally on all men. Does he apply this saving power on every person, whether they or saved or not (Universalism), or does he apply it to particular individuals who are actually saved (Particularism)? Does God’s grace just make salvation a possibility or does it actually make salvation a reality?

Warfield’s answer: Particularism (Calvinism).

The logic and flow of Warfield’s argument are powerful and weighty. He builds such momentum towards Particularism (Calvinism), that even at an early point in the book the reader gets the sense that it is an inevitability. All the biblical and theological arrows are pointing in the same direction.

If you are looking for a persuasive tool for others, or even for yourself, check out Warfield’s little book.

Then, in the back of my mind, I thought, “Didn’t I write something for this study Bible?” (Yes, I have sadly arrived at the point where I don’t remember what I have written!). I flipped through the index and it turns out that I did write something.

The kind folks at the display assured me that my copy would be arriving in the mail soon. It arrived today and it looks fantastic.

It’s an honor to be a contributor because this new study Bible is packed with wonderful articles and essays from some of the top Reformed thinkers today. Included in this list is a number of professors from Reformed Theological Seminary (past and present): Guy Waters, Roger Nicole, John Currid, Sean Lucas, Mark Futato, Bruce Waltke, Richard Pratt, Willem VanGemeren, Knox Chamblin, Charles Hill, Dennis Ireland, Reggie Kidd, Simon Kistemaker, and Derek Thomas.

My own article was “New Testament Textual Criticism” (p.2369-2371). The issue of textual transmission is a key challenge to our belief in the truthfulness of Scripture. After all, our belief that the words of the New Testament are true proves to be rather irrelevant if we don’t actually have the words of the New Testament.

In response to this sort of objection, I lay out four major premises in my article that provide a solid basis for affirming that the New Testament text has been reliably passed down to us:

1. The original text is preserved (somewhere) in the overall textual tradition.

2. The vast majority of scribal changes are minor and insignificant.

3. Of the small portion of variants that are significant, our methodology can determine, with a reasonable degree of certainty, which reading is the original text.

4. The remaining number of unresolved variants are very few and not material to the story/teaching of the New Testament.

For a more extensive discussion of NT textual criticism, see the final chapter in my book The Heresy of Orthodoxy (co-authored with Andreas Köstenberger; Crossway, 2010).

Everyone loves a good story. They can be powerful, illuminating, inspiring, and, most of all, they can be memorable. And they can really enhance the effectiveness of a sermon. No doubt, some of our favorite sermons are our favorite precisely because of the illustrations or stories they contained.

And history bears this out. Not only was Jesus himself the master storyteller (and illustrator), but some of the most famous sermons in history have contained them. One only needs to think of Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Edwards effectively compared the precarious situation of sinners dangling over the fires of hell to the way spiders dangle by the very thinnest of webs.

But, illustrations do not always turn out the way we intended. Indeed, sometimes illustrations can do more harm than good. Here are some of the major illustration pitfalls to avoid:

1. Offering an illustration too soon.

When it comes to illustrations, perhaps the number one mistake is offering one before the exegetical or theological point has really been explained or adequately developed. Remember, illustrations are designed to illuminate something else. But, they are unable to do that if the something else has never been sufficiently explored.

Too many pastors use illustrations as a substitute for exegesis, rather than as something that illumines or applies their exegesis.

In short, don’t jump the gun. You may have a zinger of an illustration waiting in the wings, but hold onto it until you have made a point worth illustrating.

2. Offering illustrations too often.

Since we know that illustrations can be powerful, we might reach the conclusion that more is always better. But, some sermons run the danger of being over-illustrated. A new story or illustration every 3-4 minutes can actually dilute the entire enterprise. Illustrations are necessary and helpful, but use them sparingly. Fewer and more meaningful illustrations can have a deeper impact than numerous and less meaningful ones.

Spurgeon, the master illustrator, said that a sermon without illustrations is like a house without windows. But, he adds, you don’t want a house that is only windows!

3. Offering only one kind of illustration.

In most pulpits today, the standard type of illustration is to tell a story. There is certainly nothing wrong with this. Jesus told many stories and they can be quite effective. But, stories are not the only kind of illustration. Jesus also used analogies or what one might call “word pictures.” These are more brief and usually draw upon some well known fact of life. For example, “The Kingdom of God is like a grain of mustard seed…” (Matt 13:31).

The Puritans were masters of this sort of illustration. When seeking to explain how one sin begets more sin, Richard Baxter simply said, “If one thief be in the house, he will let in the rest.” Short, but powerful. And this sort of illustration does not burn the clock like so many stories are apt to do.

4. Offering illustrations from only one type of source.

Where does a pastor get his illustrations from? It is the source of one’s illustration that can make or break its effectiveness. You want an illustration that virtually all the congregation can relate to, and that fits the tone/mood of the sermon.

Unfortunately, it is has become all too common today for preachers to draw illustrations almost exclusively from pop culture–particularly movies and television shows. Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong (in principle) to using such illustrations. But, pastors need to be very careful if this is the only well from which they are drawing. For one, not every congregant may be watching that movie or TV show you are citing. Moreover, you want to be careful about whether you really want them to watch certain movies or shows.

Other sources of illustration are available: historical events, news stories, the natural world, and even personal experiences.

In addition, I would suggest that the best source for good illustrations is often overlooked: the Bible itself. Scripture is packed with great stories that are perfect to illustrate virtually any sermon point. Indeed, it was often the practice of biblical writers to illustrate their point with other biblical stories! (e.g., just see Hebrews 11).

5. Offering illustrations that draw attention to themselves.

There is a certain kind of illustration that can take on a life of its own. It may be so provocative or so over-the-top, that it becomes clear that the illustration is designed to take center stage. Instead of serving to illumine something else, the illustration itself becomes the point.

Pastors must be careful of these sorts of illustrations, lest they be remembered and the sermon forgotten. As Spurgeon said, illustrations, like windows, “are meant not so much to be seen as to be seen through.”

In the end, we can affirm the very positive role of illustrations. But, if these five pitfalls are avoided, they can be even more effective at doing what they were intended, namely pointing away from themselves and to the glory of Christ.

This installment highlights RTS Charlotte alumnus Jonathan Dorst, class of ’99. Although I never had Jonathan in a class, he was deeply influenced by our professors Bob Cara, Dick Belcher, and Doug Kelly.

1. What are you currently doing?

Last summer I left the church I planted in Stillwater, OK, Grace Stillwater (PCA), after 11 years to become the Executive Pastor at RiverOaks PCA in Tulsa, OK with Senior Pastor Ricky Jones (RTS-J, ’95). As Executive Pastor, my duties include Community Groups, Youth Ministry oversight, Visitor Assimilation, Men’s Discipleship, and various teaching and preaching responsibilities.

2. Why did you originally come to RTS Charlotte?

I originally went to RTS to study theology. I did not think I wanted to be a pastor; my dad is a pastor and I had seen ‘behind the curtain’ of the church, though I have always loved her I knew she had many warts. But in the course of my studies I realized I didn’t want to do anything else and pursued ordination after graduation.

3. Is there one thing that you learned at RTS Charlotte that has come back to you as you have ministered to others? A phrase, encouragement or advice?

I feel like I constantly use concepts and phrases that I learned from Bob Cara, Dick Belcher, and Doug Kelly. I am currently teaching a covenant theology course and am so thankful for having been taught the unity of the Scriptures and the centrality of the cross by those, and other, professors.

4. What do you enjoy most about your current ministry?

I enjoy preaching and teaching, but I also love getting to meet newcomers to the church and helping them get involved and working to disciple the men.

5. What has been a struggle in your ministry?

The 3 biggest struggles in ministry for me have been 1) delegating and equipping people, with the attendant anxiety of having to trust people and 2) angry people who impute motives to those in authority and 3) dealing with leaders I trusted who turned out to be completely untrustworthy.

6. If you could give any encouragement to a current student in seminary, what would it be?

My biggest encouragement for a current student would be to be humble and realize you don’t know anything about ministry until you’ve been doing it for 10 years at least, and to take as many opportunities to preach as you possibly can- you won’t be good at preaching until you’ve preached at least 500 sermons.

Tomas Bokedal, Lecturer in New Testament at King’s College, University of Aberdeen, has recently reviewed my book The Question of Canon (IVP Academic, 2013) in the latest issue of the journal Theology (118:65-66).

I have only briefly met Tomas on few prior occasions, but I know through his publications that he is a bright scholar who himself has done some very solid work in the area of the NT canon. You can see his list of publications here.

Given Tomas’ own good work on canon, I was grateful for what was a very positive review. He writes:

This second full-length monograph on the New Testament canon by Michael Kruger (President and Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, North Carolina) will not disappoint the reader. From first to last page the argumentation is scholarly solid, intense and challenging…

Kruger here makes some constructive suggestions. In addition to the understanding of canon as a fixed and closed list of books (A. C. Sundberg’s ‘exclusive definition’) and canon as encompassing the entire process by which the formation of the Church’s sacred texts took place (Brevard S. Childs’s ‘functional definition’), Kruger adds a dimension that he labels ‘the ontological definition of canon’ (p. 40), which serves as a reminder that ‘books do not just become authoritative because of the actions of the church – they bear authority by virtue of what they are, books given by God’ (p. 43). This theological approach towards biblical canonicity, it is argued, complements the ‘exclusive’ and ‘functional’ definitions…

This book is not only an updated treatment of the emergence of the New Testament, it also contributes towards a new agenda in canon studies. I hope it will be widely read and received.

Next week, I will be heading to Orlando, FL to speak at the 2015 National Conference for The Gospel Coalition, April 13-15. This is always a great event that provides an opportunity to hear some great talks, catch up with old friends, and check out the latest books.

I am speaking at 4:30 on April 14th on the topic of “How Do We Know the Bible is God’s Word? Recovering the Doctrine of a Self-Authenticating Scripture.”

Other RTS Charlotte folks are also participating in the conference. Dr. James Anderson, associate professor of theology and philosophy, will be speaking on Worldview Apologetics . Dr. Anderson is one of the brightest minds in philosophical theology today and the author of the recent book, What’s Your Worldview? (Crossway, 2014).

Melissa is leading a workshop on the 10 commandments at the morning session (7AM!) on April 14th, and also participating in a panel discussion on “Ministry Among Women” at 1:30 along with Nancy Guthrie, Gloria Furman, and Mary Wilson.

In addition to RTS Charlotte, other RTS campuses will be represented. At 6PM on April 14th in the Butler ballroom there will be an RTS panel discussion moderated by Ligon Duncan on the topic of “Living in Light of the Gospel in the Midst of a Darkening Culture.” Participants will include myself, Scott Redd, Scott Swain, Don Sweeting, Mike Allen, and James Anderson.

You won’t want to miss these talks. If you are in the area, I hope to see you there!

There are countless stories of evangelicals who head off to Ph.D. programs in hopes of becoming a professor and having a positive influence in the secular university environment. This is particularly the case in the fields of biblical studies or philosophical theology. And such aspirations are certainly commendable.

Unfortunately, the outcome of such endeavors is not always as expected. While these evangelicals intend to influence the academy, very often the academy ends up influencing them. As a result, many evangelicals end up abandoning the very commitments that led them towards advanced study in the first place.

But even though academic study has led some evangelicals to abandon their commitments, occasionally the opposite happens. Sometimes secular scholars abandon their commitment to liberal thinking and actually become evangelicals. And when this happens, their eyes are opened up to a number of truths that they had never noticed before (or at least refused to notice).

Such is the story of Thomas Oden. Oden received his Ph.D from Yale under Richard Niebuhr and was enamored with the theology of Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Bultmann. He interacted with some of the greatest minds of his generation such as Gadamer, Pannenberg, and Karl Barth. He was a classic liberal scholar.

But, then Oden had a change of heart. He tells the story in his book, A Change of Heart: A Personal and Theological Memoir (IVP, 2014). One day a Jewish friend looked him in the eye and reminded him of something very few would dare to say: that he would stand under divine judgment on the last day.

Then his friend said, “If you are ever going to become a credible theologian instead of a know-it-all pundit, you had best restart your life on firmer ground” (137).

Ouch.

The words struck a nerve and Oden began a journey that eventually resulted in a 180 degree turn away from liberalism and towards historic, traditional Christianity. Oden’s story provides a rare glimpse into the world of modern liberal scholarship from the perspective of someone who used to believe all the standard critical views but then changed his mind. Thus, there are a number of lessons we can learn from his journey:

Lesson 1: Contemporary scholarly methods do not always lead one to truth.

The Goliath of the modern academy can be an intimidating foe. People naturally assume that the consensus of modern scholarship must be right. But, Oden discovered that much of what he was taught was flat out wrong. He states, “I had put too much uncritical trust in contemporary methods of historical study and behavioral engineering. . . the change in perception was momentous for me.” (139).

Lesson 2: Many of the questions raised by modern scholars have been addressed (long) before in the history of Christianity.

When critical scholars uncover what they regard as incongruities or problems with the Bible (or Christianity), they are often presented as new discoveries that no one has heretofore noticed or addressed. But, as Oden began to read early Christian writers, particular in the first few centuries of the faith, he realized (to his surprise) that they were quite aware of these challenges and difficulties and were already addressing them head on. He writes, “Every question I previously thought of as new and unprecedented, I found had already been much investigated” (138).

Lesson 3: The quest for originality and newness can be a dangerous one.

One of the standard values of many modern scholars is that new is better than old. New approaches, new ideas, new ways of thinking are highly prized. Old ways are archaic, out of date, and primitive. Oden confesses that he used to think this way, “I had been enamored with novelty. Candidly, I had been in love with heresy” (140). But, then he came to realize that theology can be done more reliably and faithfully by uncovering the historic Christian teachings on a particular subject, rather than trying to come up with something utterly new. Oden describes his new direction, “I set about trying scrupulously to abstain from creating any new doctrine. It was the best decision I made as a theologian…I realized that I could be a theologian simply by reflecting accurately out of the great minds of Christian teaching” (144).

Lesson 4: Scholarly views can have serious social consequences.

Sometimes people have the misperception that scholarly arguments and opinions have no influence on culture and society—they are just ideas locked away in the ivory tower. So people think. But, Oden realized that his liberal scholarly views had serious social consequences. They can impact real lives. And after he changed his direction, he lamented and regretted these consequences. He writes, “My past visions of vast plans for social change had irreparably harmed many innocents, especially the unborn. The sexually permissive lifestyle, which I had not joined but failed to critique, led to a generation of fatherless children. The political policies I had promoted were intended to increase justice…but ended in diminishing personal responsibility and freedom” (145). Oden then states, “Since true guilt was seldom mentioned in modern secular ethics, I had to learn to repent, to see my own arrogance.”

Lesson 5: The modern scholarly community is not tolerant like people think.

There is a perception out there that the academy is a community committed to neutrality, tolerance, and intellectual freedom. Professors are free to have whatever beliefs they find compelling and supported by the evidence. Right? While there are still faculty (and institutions) that share this approach, there are many who do not. And Oden discovered this reality. After changing intellectual directions his colleagues did not respond with tolerance. They did not give him his intellectual freedom. They did not allow him to hold his own convictions. On the contrary, he was vilified, marginalized, and viewed as an intellectual pariah. He writes, “My colleagues viewed my reversed direction as disastrous academically and they urged me to reconsider…To become an articulate Christian believer in a modern university is to become a pariah to many” (146). And Oden was treated this way for holding believes that have been part of historical Christianity for thousands of years.

Lesson 6: A faithful voice can have a significant impact.

Evangelicals are so outnumbered in the academy that it would be easy to conclude they have no impact. However, the rarity of biblical fidelity at the higher levels of scholarship makes such voices stand out all the more. Although Oden did not see the fruit of his labors at first, it turned out that many were impacted, influenced, and encouraged by his writing and his ministry. In fact, it turned out that many other liberal scholars in his day followed the new path towards traditional Christianity. He writes, “I at times imagined that I was the only one who was on this eccentric path backward from modern accommodation to classic Christianity…But as I learned to listen to the life stories of others who has similar trajectories to mine, I found their companionship encouraging” (178).

Lesson 7: Modern Ideologies will eventually collapse under their own weight.

Oden tells the story of how modernity collapsed during the 1960’s and 1970’s because its worldview proved to be too problematic. That movement has now been replaced by postmodernity. But, that movement too will eventually collapse under the weight of its own incoherence and internal inconsistency. Oden argues that this is a cycle of the world, but that biblical Christianity will always remain. He writes, “The good news is that the seeds of God’s good news are planted in every dying culture. What is ahead of postmodernity? No one knows, but whatever it is, it will not succeed in destroying the deep roots of Christian memory” (164).

These seven lessons provide both warnings and encouragements for evangelical scholars today. They are a warning about the lure of the academy and the dangers of always trying to come up with something new. And they are an encouragement that fidelity and faithfulness to Scripture are more important than academic respect and the accolades of one’s colleagues.

And more than anything else, it is an encouragement that while challenges to Christianity come and go, the long view of history shows that Christianity will prevail.

Last night RTS Charlotte hosted its biannual vision banquet with speaker Kevin DeYoung and musician Andrew Peterson. It was a very special event with a great turnout and a focus on raising funds for student scholarships. I am so grateful for everyone who participated.

Kevin, as most readers know, is the senior pastor of University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan and the author of numerous books, most recently Taking God at His Word, Crazy Busy, and The Hole in Our Holiness. He spoke on 7 reasons why he loves seminaries, and 3 reasons why he loves RTS in particular. It was a perfect address for the occasion.

Before the vision banquet, Kevin spoke in chapel and then I interviewed him about some of the latest developments in his ministry. Then we took Q&A from the students. That session was videoed so I will post that shortly.

Andrew is a well known singer and songwriter, and now award-winning author. His most recent album, Light for the Lost Boy, has been widely acclaimed. Last night Andrew was fantastic (as expected) and was a great blessing to listen to.

His lyrics are biblical, thoughtful, insightful, and inspiring. It was amazing to have both Andrew and Kevin at the same event.

I spoke briefly at the end of the event on the vision of RTS Charlotte. In short, I made the point that our ministry is strategic because it is “the ministry behind the ministry”–i.e., it is the ministry that fuels so many other ministries. We train the leaders that go on to be missionaries, counselors, campus ministers, pastors, and more. Our ministry helps so many other ministries succeed by ensuring that its leaders are well-trained in how to handle the Word of God and faithfully proclaim its message.

Being a mom is not easy. It is a whirlwind experience filled with exhilaration and joy on the one hand, and exhaustion and challenges on the other. There are days when a mom finds deep satisfaction in her new role as a parent, and there are other days when she doesn’t know if she can go on.

During times like this, it is critical that a mom find her joy and her assurance in a stable place that cannot be shaken. And that is found in her relationship with Jesus Christ.

For this reason, I am very excited that this week my wife Melissa’s new book was released, Walking with God in the Season of Motherhood (Waterbrook, 2015). What makes this book unique is that it is not a How-to book about parenting, but a book that directs moms back to Christ during one of the must crucial stages of their lives.

Melissa takes moms through an eleven-week devotional Bible study on enormously critical topics such as Understanding Your Purpose, Knowing God’s Word, Entrusting Your Child to the Lord, Ordering Your Home, and much more. If you are looking for a great gift to give at a baby shower, this is it.

Here is an amazing list of endorsements:

“In this interactive study Melissa Kruger takes moms, with all our insecurities and inconsistencies and uncertainties, to Scripture, where we find wisdom, encouragement, instruction, correction, and, best of all, grace.” —Nancy Guthrie, author of One Year of Dinner Table Devotions and Discussion Starters

“During the busy days of motherhood, getting into the Bible can be difficult. Walking with God in the Season of Motherhood is a perfect Bible study tool that equips and instructs us from the Word of God with encouragement specifically geared to a mother’s heart. Reading Melissa Kruger’s words will leave you deeply encouraged and challenged without being overwhelmed.” —Trillia Newbell, author of Fear and Faith: Finding the Peace Your Heart Craves and United: Captured by God’s Vision for Diversity

“I speak with the authority of a mom who has investigated paths that led nowhere. Moms don’t need good advice for choosing the best path based on collaborative best practices. What moms need most is to know and be known by the One who said that He is ‘the way and the truth and the life.’ This Bible study is Christ centered and thoroughly encouraging; make the most of it by diving into Scripture with some of your friends.” —Gloria Furman, author of Glimpses of Grace and Treasuring Christ When Your Hands Are Full

“This book is like sitting down for an extended mentoring session with an experienced mother who warmly shares her world and her love for the Lord Jesus. Melissa Kruger shows how she has grounded her mothering in Scripture—and encourages others to do the same. Through a series of topics both practical and theological, she keeps her promise to ‘walk alongside you as you walk with God in the season of motherhood.’” —Kathleen B. Nielson, director of women’s initiatives for the Gospel Coalition and author of Bible Study: Following the Ways of the Word

“This book will be a lifeline for first-time mothers who are feeling their way in their new calling. But it is equally important for the rest of us mothers and even for grandmothers. Each day’s study uses substantive scriptures and soul-searching questions to reorient busy mothers toward walking with God in the mundane moments. With a singular focus on the riches of God’s Word, Melissa Kruger gently helps mothers in all circumstances to step beyond the feeding-schooling-vaccinating-diapering wars into something so much bigger: a life defined by—and dependent on—the glorious call of Christ.” —Megan Hill, writer for Her.meneutics and the Gospel Coalition and an editorial board member for Christianity Today

“Titus 2 calls older women to train younger women to love their children. In this Bible study Melissa Kruger obeys the Titus mandate. But she does more. She gives the church a practical, gospel-focused resource for older women to disciple younger women in the high calling of motherhood.” —Susan Hunt, wife of a retired pastor, mother, grandmother, and author of several books for women and children

“Melissa Kruger is a rare find as a friend and mentor to moms! In her devotional Bible study, she walks moms through eleven weeks of daily reflections that will shape a busy mom’s heart to trust in God. Along the way she shares wisdom and tips from her own experience. Key memory verses, certain to transform hearts, are given for both moms and their children. I warmly recommend this devotional study for a mom’s personal reading and for older women wanting to guide younger moms.” —Margaret Köstenberger, ThD, adjunct Professor of Women’s Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and coauthor of God’s Design for Man and Woman: A Biblical-Theological Survey

Over at Melissa’s blog, Wit’s End, she tells the back story of how she wrote this book and where the inspiration came from. You can check out the story here.

I recently spent some time in Chattanooga speaking to various groups about the authority of Scripture. I spoke to college students from RUF at the University of Tennessee (Chattanooga) and Covenant College about “Five Misconceptions about the Origins of the New Testament.”

Then I spoke to Alternate Seminary on “How Do We Know the Bible is God’s Word?” Alternate Seminary is doing some great work training African American pastors and leaders. Here is a twitter post from my visit there:

Pleased to speak on biblical authority 4 Alt.Sem. in Chatt, TN. Great work for African American pastors pic.twitter.com/cpfX9jTcaH

One of the most common objections to biblical authority is that the God of the Bible is guilty of committing immoral acts. God appears to advocate, endorse, and even commit acts that are normally seen as morally questionable. The classic example is the command to the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites as they enter into the promised land.

In fact, it is the question of whether God endorses genocide that features heavily in the objections of atheist Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion (Mariner Books, 2008). It is also a prominent theme in Peter Enns’ book, The Bible Tells Me So (HarperOne, 2014). See my review of Enns here.

For these reasons, I am thankful for the good work of Dick Belcher, the John D. and Francis M. Gwin Professor of Old Testament here at RTS Charlotte. Dr. Belcher has recently published important commentaries on book such as Genesis, Ecclesiastes, and has a wonderful book on Christ in the Pslams: The Messiah and the Psalms(Christian Focus, 2006).

Dr. Belcher recently did an interview on whether God is a moral monster with AP Magazine, an evangelical, Reformed publication out of Australia. Here are some excerpts:

Critics of the Bible claim that it contains so many obscene and cruel stories that it can hardly be the work of a holy and righteous God. Do they have a point?

Obviously, this is a pressing issue today. In the past people who have had moral problems with the Bible have said, “Well, the Bible contains some stories and practices that are offensive to many people and this undermines its authority”. But today some of the more passionate atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have gone a step further and said, “the Bible’s views on morality are dangerous”. This represents a change in the way that people are viewing the Bible. They are not simply saying that it is wrong; they are claiming that it is evil. Moreover, they go a step further and suggest that the teaching of the Bible should not even be tolerated; instead, it should be rejected as “hateful”. In response, I would point out that when the Bible describes an event it does not mean that it necessarily condones it. The Bible paints an honest picture about the fallen world and it certainly includes some confronting stories. However, the inclusion of some of these stories does not mean that God approves the actions of their characters. On the contrary, they are often condemned. What we need to understand is that God is able to use these stories in ways that further His purposes by teaching us things we need to know about Him, ourselves and His grace towards sinners.

When God brings judgment on people such as Pharaoh or the Canaanites is He being malicious, or does He have some other purpose in view?

In most of these situations, God’s first response is not judgment. Even in a case like Sodom and Gomorrah, God comes first to Abraham to reveal His plans to him. Abraham pleads with God, and God is willing to save the cities if there are 10 righteous people in them. So we see that God’s first response is not one of judgment. Usually God’s judgment comes after an extended period where people refuse to change, and evil reaches epidemic proportions. God is always slow to execute judgment. In Genesis 15 we discover that God reveals that He will not punish the Amorites for at least four generations, which in those times equated to over four centuries. I don’t think that anyone could argue that God acted capriciously and was not long-suffering and just in executing His judgments. In fact, I think that most of us would be thankful that God is so forbearing and merciful in the way He executes justice. I think we all need to pause and remember that the God of the Bible is holy and we are sinners. We deserve nothing from Him, and that’s the part of the equation we don’t understand today. If we did we would soon realise how merciful and gracious God is when He exercises such restraint towards us.

A lot of people take offence at God’s command to the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites. What do we know about the Canaanites? Did they deserve it?

That’s the way this issue is presented sometimes: the poor, innocent Canaanites, minding their own business, and then God pounces on them in judgment and destroys them through the Israelites. Well, as I said earlier, God’s judgment wasn’t His first response. He waited for over four centuries until their evil had reached the upper limit, so to speak. The Canaanites were a people who were very wicked in their behaviour, even engaging in child-sacrifice. They worshiped gods who were lustful, incestuous, and bloodthirsty and the Canaanites became like the gods they worshipped. The goddess of sex and war, Ashtart, was very violent. She decorated herself with suspended heads and hands attached to a girdle. She exalted in brutality and butchery. Of course, the Canaanites also worshipped Baal, who was the god of fertility. One aspect of Baal worship involved the Canaanites engaging in sexual activity as a form of sympathetic magic to induce him to produce fruitfulness for their crops. So it’s a false picture to say that the Canaanites were innocent people minding their own business. They were extremely debauched and wicked people.

How would you answer somebody like Richard Dawkins who says that when God orders the extermination of the Canaanites He is nothing more than a moral monster?

I would answer by reminding him that the Bible says that God is a God of justice. His judgment is simply a manifestation of His justice and righteousness, and if we had a sense of His holiness, our response would be one of fear and reverence because of the holy God that He is. I would also remind him that this judgment upon the Canaanites serves as a warning of the future eschatological judgment that faces us. And I would also add this: God’s command to exterminate theCanaanites is not something that occurs all throughout Old Testament history. It is for a particular period of Israel’s history. It’s not as if Israel participated all throughout her history in this kind of activity. It was for a particular purpose in a limited period of her history. Further, it was confined to the time when she entered Canaan to take possession of it for herself so as to fulfil God’s purpose for her. Now there were times when Israel engaged in physical warfare – holy war – but many times that was defensive. So this is a strictly limited period during Israel’s existence, and we should not think of Israel participating in this kind of activity all throughout her history. To suggest otherwise is wrong.

I’ve said it before and now I will say it again: more Reformed churches need to consider adding staff positions in the area of women’s ministry. It is so exciting to see the many women RTS Charlotte has trained over the years head out into ministry and be a blessing to the church. These women bring a life and vitality to their ministries that is bearing real fruit.

I am the Director of Women in Ministry at First Presbyterian Church (EPC) in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. I meet with women, teach Bible studies, write curriculum, and work with the pastors to love the congregation and our city well.

2. Why did you originally come to RTS Charlotte?

Making the decision to go to RTS Charlotte was not a difficult one. It was very clear to me that the professors not only love God and His Word but are committed to reading and teaching it responsibly. Further, they have a strong desire for their students to know God more and to, in turn, love God more.

3. Is there one thing that you learned at RTS Charlotte that has come back to you as you have ministered to others? A phrase, encouragement or advice?

A recurring theme in seminary was that the study of the Bible in an academic setting and the application of the Bible to our lives are not mutually exclusive. This is something I carried throughout seminary as I wrote papers and studied for exams while trying to minister to those in my church. Now, in full time ministry, I continue studying Scripture and digging into it in order that these truths might sink into my own heart and so that I might share it with others.

4. What do you enjoy most about your current ministry?

My favorite part of the job is teaching. I love sharing what I am learning of God’s character and His plan. It’s great to see women learning new insight from a passage they are reading for the first time – or have read many times before. Also, our Bible studies are mostly intergenerational so I get to benefit from the wisdom of women in all stages of life.

5. What has been a struggle in your ministry?

I think working full time in ministry is extremely humbling. I am not Jesus – and therefore I can’t save people. I can’t fix every problem. I meet with women who have very big, very real issues and I am pushed over and over again to rely on the Lord in prayer. As a human it is difficult to have my own struggles and pain and then walk with women through their suffering. I have to constantly remind myself to filter this suffering through truth.

6. If you could give any encouragement to a current student in seminary, what would it be?

If I could give any encouragement to seminary students now it would be this: enjoy this time! The three years I spent working toward my MDiv were some of the most wonderful years I have had so far. Dig into Scripture. Let what you learn in class and what you write about in papers be devotional. You are learning more about God’s plan and character – and you aren’t in it alone! You are studying alongside others who are in ministry – develop those friendships and get to know the professors.

I was recently interviewed on the topic of the NT Canon by Matthew Barrett, editor of Credo Magazine. This magazine is excellent resource, committed to Christ, the authority of Scripture and the fundamental tenets of the Reformation. Here is their own description:

At its core, Credo Magazine strives to be centered on the gospel, confessing the substitutionary death and historical resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of sinners. In doing so, Credo Magazine not only draws upon the historic creeds and confessions of the faith, but especially the great pillars of the Reformation: sola scriptura, solus Christus, sola gratia, sola fide, and soli Deo gloria. Our desire is to see biblically-grounded, Christ-exalting reformation and transformation in the church today.

The latest issue of the magazine is entitled, “By the Book: How Well Do You Know Your Bible?”, and includes contributions from Robert Plummer, Kevin DeYoung, Doug Moo, Tom Schreiner, and others.

Here is Matt’s first question (in bold) and my answer:

Many scholars have approached the canon of Scripture thinking that they must find that special date in the early centuries of the church when the canon was finally closed and the church officially declared the books of the New Testament canonical. But you completely reorient our approach to the canon when you say in your book Canon Revisited, “From the perspective of God’s revelational activity, a canon exists as soon as the New Testament books are written—the canon is always the books God has given to the corporate church, no more, no less.” This sentence seems to get to the very thesis of your book. So tell us, what do you mean and why is this so different from how others have approached the canon?

…

Most modern approaches to canon are done on only a historical level, with no serious attention to the theology of the canon. Thus, when scholars want to investigate the “date” of the canon, what they are really investigating is the date of the reception of the canon by the early church. Investigating the date of the reception of the canon is entirely legitimate but it’s not the whole story. In addition to the date of the canon’s reception, there is also the question of the date of the canon’s existence. And this latter issue can only be discussed when theological considerations are allowed into the discussion (e.g., canonical books are given by the inspiration of the Spirit). One might say this is looking at the canon from a “divine” perspective, rather than just a human one.

It seems that Rob Bell and Oprah Winfrey are pretty good friends these days. Bell has appeared on Oprah’s show numerous times, and just recently appeared, along with his wife Kristen, on her “Super Soul Sunday” episode over Valentine’s Day weekend. Their appearance was designed to promote their new book, The ZimZum of Love: A New Way of Understanding Marriage (HarperOne: 2014).

Now, I have to confess that I have no idea what the main title means. But, the subtitle is pretty bold. Given that marriage dates back to the very creation of mankind in Genesis, do we really need a new version of it? Is something wrong with the original version? Apparently Bell thinks so. At least as it pertains to the issue of gay marriage, which he endorses in this new book.

The issue of gay marriage even comes up in the interview with Oprah. Since Oprah is unlikely to challenge the coherence of Bell’s rationale (she wholeheartedly agrees with him), I thought I would fill in the gap by offering an analysis of his statements here. Here are some excerpts from the interview.

1. During the interview, Kristen Bell reads a line from the book: “Marriage, gay and straight, is a gift to the world because the world needs more not less love, fidelity, commitment, devotion and sacrifice,”

This is one of the statements that resonates with our modern world. After all, who is opposed to “love”? Who doesn’t want more “love” in the world? This sort of rhetoric is very effective at making anyone opposed to gay marriage look like they are against love. It makes them looks like they are hateful.

But, never do such statements define what “love” really is. For our culture, “love” means whatever you want it to mean. There are no rules, no restrictions, no boundaries. But, let’s imagine some different scenarios and see whether Bell’s logic makes sense. Let’s imagine an adult son and his mother wanted to get married. Is Bell ready to say this incestuous marriage “is a gift to the world because the world needs more not less love“? Doubtful. Or, perhaps a man wants three wives. Is Bell ready to say this polygamous marriage is “a gift to the world because the world needs more not less love?” If he is consistent, he would have to say yes.

On Bell’s 1960’s “All you need is Love” view of marriage, it could never be a definable institution that people participate in. Rather, marriage simply becomes whatever each person wants it to be. Thus, on Bell’s view there can be no such thing as marriage. Because “marriage” is defined by the whims and preferences of each individual, it just evaporates into subjectivism.

2. After Oprah asked him why he included gay marriage in his book, Bell said, “One of the oldest aches in the bones of humanity is loneliness…Loneliness is not good for the world. Whoever you are, gay or straight, it is totally normal, natural and healthy to want someone to go through life with. It’s central to our humanity. We want someone to go on the journey with.”

I’ve got to say, this is masterful work from Bell. Framing the debate over homosexual marriage around the issue of loneliness is brilliant. After all, if anyone objects it looks like they are a cruel, unfeeling person who doesn’t care about the suffering of the homosexual community.

But, once again, when you dig into Bell’s statements more deeply, you realized they are flawed at a fundamental level. Bell says loneliness “is not good for the world.” Maybe so. But, sexual immorality is also not good for the world. Casting off God’s guidance on what counts as legitimate healthy sexual activity is also not good for the world. Despite popular beliefs, immoral sexual activity is not harmless. It can have serious emotional, spiritual, and even physical ramifications.

Even more, the “loneliness argument” Bell espouses could be used to justify virtually any sexual activity. Returning to the example above, what if an adult son and his mother wanted to get married and cited their “loneliness” as the reason? Does that make it Ok? Is polygamy also Ok on the grounds of loneliness?

But, there is an even bigger problem here for Bell. If loneliness is the issue, one does not need marriage to solve it. People live together and sleep together all the time as a cure for their loneliness. On what possible grounds could Bell object to two people living together outside of marriage? They could throw Bell’s loneliness argument right back in his face, “Come on Rob, ‘it is totally normal, natural and healthy to want someone to go through life with. It’s central to our humanity. We want someone to go on the journey with.'”

3. When Oprah asks why the church does not yet “get it” regarding gay marriage, Bell says: “I think culture is already there and the church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defense, when you have in front of you flesh-and-blood people who are your brothers and sisters, and aunts and uncles, and co-workers and neighbors, and they love each other and just want to go through life.”

From someone who at least pretends to be a pastor, this is a stunning statement. Notice that Bell doesn’t refer to the “Bible” or to “Scripture” or to “God’s Word” but instead refers to “letters from 2,000 years ago.” This is a pejorative (and deceptive) way of speaking designed to undermine the credibility of the Bible regarding sexual issues. These are just old letters, says Bell, pay no attention. They have nothing to say about these things. Don’t bother listening to them.

By kicking the Bible to the curb, Bell may please Oprah, but he stands in direct contrast to thousands of years of church history (not to mention the history of Israel). God’s people have always looked to the Bible as the ultimate guide for life, especially when it comes to issues of sexual ethics. Indeed, as I pointed out in a prior post, the earliest Christians stood out from the Greco-Roman world precisely in the area of their sexual behavior.

Even Jesus himself looked to the Bible as the ultimate guide for sexual ethics. He appealed to numerous biblical texts to defend the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman (e.g., Matt 19:1-9).

So, what does Bell think is a better guide for sexual ethics than the Bible? Personal experience. Why would you choose the Bible, says Bell, “when you have in front of you flesh-and-blood people who…love each other and just want to go through life.’ In other words, what should guide our decisions is the personal sexual experiences of people. We should follow what they feel is right. If this is how they find “love” then great. Thus, on Bell’s view, there are no sexual ethics. There are just people’s personal sexual preferences. Welcome to a brave new world.

Of course, as noted above. This logic puts Bell in a predicament. If everyone gets to just pick their own sexual practices, then he must acknowledge that incestuous love, polygamous love, and many other kinds of deviant sexual behavior are all legitimate.

With the help of Rob Bell, I am sure that our culture is headed precisely in this direction. The logic used to justify homosexual marriage is like an acid that will eventually eat its way through every remaining sexual boundary in our culture. And pretty soon, there will be no boundaries.

And this will not create a culture of love, peace, and fulfillment as Bell and Oprah predict. It will create a culture of sexual, emotional, spiritual, and even physical brokenness. Ironically, therefore, it will create a culture of loneliness. The very thing Bell said that homosexual marriage is designed to cure.

When the culture eventually hits rock bottom, the hope is people will begin to see that a society without any sexual boundaries is self-destructive. The hope is that they will be like the young cowboy Billy in the 1993 movie Tombstone. After running with the lawless crowd for a while, Billy begins to see how destructive that life really is. Then he comes to his senses and declares to the gang leader, “I’m sorry sir, but we’ve got to have some law.”

Yes, even in the world of sex and marriage, “We’ve got to have some law.” And when a culture begins to realize it, usually that is when revival takes place.

1934 was a big year for Germany. It was the year that Adolf Hitler became the Führer and complete head of the German nation and the Nazi party. And, as we all know, it wasn’t long after that time, that Germany invaded Poland and began World War II.

But 1934 was a significant year for another reason. Very quietly, behind the scenes, a book was published that would change the landscape of early Christian studies for years to come. Walter Bauer published his now famous monograph, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Compared to Hitler’s rise, this was not very newsworthy. And Bauer’s book did not have much of an impact at first. But, in 1971 it was translated into English and since that time things have radically changed in the academy of the English speaking world.

As is well known now, Bauer’s main thesis was that early Christianity was a bit of a mess. It was a theological quagmire. No one could get along; no one could agree. There was in-fighting and competition between various competing factions, all warring it out about what really constituted “Christianity.” Thus, for Bauer, there was no such thing as Christianity (singular) during this time, but only Christianities (plural). And each of these Christianities, argues Bauer, had its own set of books. Each had its own writings that it valued and thought were Scripture. After the dust settled, one particular group, and their books, won the theological war. But, why should we think these are the right books? These are just the books of the theological winners.

Bauer’s thesis has seen a strong resurgence in recent years, particularly in the writings of scholars like Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman, and Helmut Koester. And it is the basis for a very common misconception about the NT Canon, namely that there was very little agreement over the books that made it into the canon until the fourth or fifth century. Before that, we are told, early Christianity was somewhat of a literary free for all. No one could agree on much of anything.

Eighty years ago, Walter Bauer promulgated a bold and provocative thesis about early Christianity. He argued that many forms of Christianity started the race, but one competitor pushed aside the others, until this powerful ”orthodox” version won the day. The victors re-wrote history, marginalizing all other perspectives and silencing their voices, even though the alternatives possessed equal right to the title of normative Christianity. Bauer’s influence still casts a long shadow on early Christian scholarship. Were heretical movements the original forms of Christianity? Did the heretics outnumber the orthodox? Did orthodox heresiologists accurately portray their opponents? And more fundamentally, how can one make any objective distinction between ”heresy” and ”orthodoxy”? Is such labeling merely the product of socially situated power? Did numerous, valid forms of Christianity exist without any validating norms of Christianity? This collection of essays, each written by a relevant authority, tackles such questions with scholarly acumen and careful attention to historical, cultural-geographical, and socio-rhetorical detail. Although recognizing the importance of Bauer’s critical insights, innovative methodologies, and fruitful suggestions, the contributors expose numerous claims of the Bauer thesis (in both original and recent manifestations) that fall short of the historical evidence.

Here are the endorsements (including my own):

”Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts brings up to date a long-existing debate about those other gospels and early Christianity. Covering issues tied to the Apostolic Fathers, Irenaeus, Gnosticism, and the rule of faith, here is a solid compendium of essays that issues a significant challenge to the thesis of Walter Bauer–that orthodoxy emerged late from a largely sociological battle over the origin of the Jesus movement. It shows how orthodoxy’s roots are far older than claims of other options from the second century and beyond. This is simply profitable reading.” –Darrell L. Bock, Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX

”With worthy contributions from both New Testament and patristic scholars, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts offers a timely reappraisal and rebuttal of the ‘Bauer thesis.’ The authors of this handy volume simultaneously sum up Bauer’s evidence and arguments, size up subsequent post-Bauer mutations of the thesis, and serve up a needed corrective from a variety of perspectives–a must-have for students of New Testament and early Christian studies.” –Michael J. Svigel, Associate Professor of Theological Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX

”Modern scholars continue to be entranced by Walter Bauer’s thesis that earliest Christianity was wildly diverse with no clear orthodoxy or heresy. Indeed, it is Bauer’s thesis that has provided the foundation for many of the modern attacks on the integrity of the Bible. Thus, I am thankful for this outstanding collection of essays aimed at refuting Bauer’s thesis and setting the record straight about what earliest Christianity was really like. With clarity and thoroughness, these essays sweep away the cloud of doubt raised by Bauer and shine fresh light on how Christianity developed in the earliest centuries.” –Michael J. Kruger, President, Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC –Wipf and Stock Publishers

It probably comes as no surprise that the most common question I receive from both Christians and non-Christians is “How do I know the Bible is the Word of God?” And the reason this question is at the top of the list is not hard to determine. The authority of the Bible is the foundation for everything that we believe as Christians. It is the source of our doctrine and our ethics. Thus, we need to be able to answer this question when asked.

Let me say from the outset that there is not just one answer to this question. I think there are many ways that Christians can come to know the Scriptures are from God. God can certainly use historical evidences to convince us of the truth of his Word (though it is important to understand the limitations of evidence). And God can use the testimony of the church to convince us of the truth of his Word (I cover the details of this in Canon Revisited).

But, it is noteworthy that throughout the history of the church many Christians have ascertained the divine origins of the Bible in yet another way: its internal qualities. Apparently some Christians were persuaded of the Bible’s authority by reading it and observing its distinctive character and power.

Tatian is one such Christian. Tatian was a second-century Christian thinker, a disciple of Justin Martyr, and the author of an apologetic work known as Oration to the Greeks (c.165). In this work, Tatian makes his case for the truth of Christianity. During one section, he lays out his personal conversion story and recounts how he carefully examined all the pagan religious writings and found them incoherent, problematic, and, sometimes, downright evil. But, then he happened to come across the Scriptures and began to read:

I was led to put my faith in these by the unpretending cast of the language, the inartificial character of the writers, the foreknowledge displayed of future events, the excellent quality of the precepts, and the declaration of the government of the universe as centered on one Being. And my soul being taught of God, I discern that the former class of [pagan] writings lead to condemnation, but that these [Scriptures] put an end to the slavery that is in the world (29).

This is a profound statement. Tatian, the impressive intellect that he was, was not persuaded by historical evidence nor from the testimony of the church (though, as noted above, both are legitimate when appropriately utilized), but by the internal qualities of the Scriptures themselves. There was something about the Scriptures that came alive to him. How did he discern this? As he indicates, “my soul being taught of God.” Presumably this is a reference to the work of the Holy Spirit.

And Tatian was not the only one who thought like this. One century later, Origen says something very similar:

If anyone ponders over the prophetic sayings…it is certain that in the very act of reading and diligently studying them his mind and feelings will be touched by a divine breath and he will recognize that the words he is reading are not the utterances of men but the language of God (Princ. 4.1.6).

The Reformers also thought this way. They believed the truth of Scripture could be ascertained, by the help of the Holy Spirit, from the Scriptures themselves. This is what they meant when they said the Scriptures were self-authenticating.

Such a reality should come as no surprise. After all Jesus said, “My sheep here my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27).

One of the most exciting programs over the last few years at RTS Charlotte is the Institute for Reformed Campus Ministry (IRCM). The IRCM is designed to equip our students for the challenges that are unique to campus ministry–and there are many. The college campus is one of the most critical battle grounds in our world today, and we are please to play a role in sending well-trained men and women to labor there.

The IRCM involves a specialized degree emphasis in campus ministry, as well as the IRCM Fellowship (a community of folks headed to campus ministry), IRCM events and lunches, and more. You can read more about it here.

While the IRCM serves a number of different campus ministries, it is no surprise that Reformed University Fellowship has become one of our biggest constituencies. Many RTS Charlotte alumni have become RUF pastors or staff over the years, and we look forward to that trend continuing in the future.

For that reason, I am pleased that this installment of the Where Are They Now? alumni series is focused on J.R. Foster, class of 1999 and area coordinator for RUF. For other installments in the series, see here.

1. What are you currently doing?

I am an Area Coordinator for Reformed University Fellowship (RUF), specifically serving our campus ministries in SC, GA, and FL.

2. Why did you originally come to RTS Charlotte?

When I began RTS – Charlotte in 1996, the fledgling campus had just graduated its first class. Without many years to form a local reputation, I chose it based on RTS’s national reputation as well as its proximity to where I was living.

3. Is there one thing that you learned at RTS that has come back to you as you have ministered to others? A phrase, encouragement or advice?

I learned so much from so many different professors, but the late Dr Frank Kik used to say to his students ad nauseam: “You’re preaching to people and not pews.” As much as my fellow students and I rolled our eyes at him for the number of times he reminded us of this maxim, I am indebted to him for the principle behind it: ministry is to people. I believe that principle shaped me in the way that I approach pastoral ministry. Being task-orientated by nature, it’s a needed reminder to me that ministry is about caring for people.

4. What do you enjoy most about your current ministry?

I was an RUF campus minister for 11 years, 1999-2010. During that tenure, I served on a campus with an existing RUF as well as a campus where I began the ministry. Those experiences have given me valuable wisdom in campus ministry, a wisdom that I am able to pass on to the 20 campus ministers under my care. I truly love coming alongside these men and providing encouragement and guidance in their ministries.

5. What has been a struggle in your ministry?

In Spiritual Depression, Dr Lloyd-Jones speaks so truthfully that many of our struggles in the Christian life are as a result of listening to ourselves rather than talking to ourselves. My struggle in ministry always has been listening to myself and the inner criticisms I hear from within rather than talking to myself and the outer truths God speaks to me from His Word.

6. If you could give any encouragement to a current student in seminary, what would it be?

Since Dr Kik is not there to say it any longer, I’ll say it now: you’re preaching to people and not pews!

As one considers the values of Hollywood and American pop culture, it would be easy to conclude that no one is concerned all that much about morality. The dominant message is that people should live whatever life-style suits their personal preferences. What is right for one person is not necessarily what is right for another.

Or so it would seem.

Just about the time you are convinced that Hollywood thinks morality is relative, a major entertainment figure steps forward and speaks out vigorously about a moral cause. Maybe it’s the environment. Or perhaps its racism. Or maybe the moral cause is caring for the poor. Regardless, it turns out that, in certain instances, morality is absolute after all. In regard to these moral issues, apparently everyone should be on board.

Such was the case with the latest statements by the actress Julianne Moore. The headline I read about her most recent interview said it all:

“Oscar Actress Frontrunner: I Don’t Believe in God; Gun Control a Must.”

Now right off the bat, it is clear that there are some serious problems with Moore’s worldview. First, she stumbles into the very problem mentioned above. How can we take her moral position seriously, when the message of her industry is that there are no moral absolutes? You can’t say, on the one hand, “Live whatever life-style you want,” and then, on the other hand, say, “You must follow this particular moral position” (in this case, gun control). It’s one or the other.

But, the second problem is even bigger than the first. In addition to making moral claims, Moore makes it clear that she doesn’t believe in God. Apparently, then, she has an atheistic worldview. Of course, she is free to have such a worldview, but the problem is that it doesn’t square with her moral crusade for gun control.

Presumably, she is concerned about gun control because she values human life. She believes it is “wrong” to take a human life, and wants to prevent as many human deaths as possible. But, on an atheistic worldview, why is human life more important than any other life? It is just the product of billions of years of mindless evolution. On an atheistic worldview, taking a human life is no different than taking the life of a cockroach. On an atheistic worldview, there is no right and wrong at all.

“I learned when my mother died five years ago that there is no ‘there’ there,” she reflects. “Structure, it’s all imposed. We impose order and narrative on everything in order to understand it. Otherwise, there’s nothing but chaos.”

Basically, according to Moore, there is no inherent meaning in the universe–meaning is just something we “impose” on a world filled with “chaos.” All good and well, but what then is the ground for her moral claims about gun control and the value of human life? In a world without meaning, why would it matter what one human does to another? It is just one bag of molecules doing something to another bag of molecules.

Of course, Moore might respond and say, “You can still have morality on an atheistic worldview. Morality is determined by what is good for the most people. And gun control is good for the most people.”

But, this just creates a new moral code out of thin air, namely that “Morality is determined by what is good for the most people.” Where does this moral standard come from? Did she just make it up? And why should people follow it? Moreover, how does Moore determine what is good for the most people? What counts as “good”?

In the end, Moore’s worldview faces some serious philosophical challenges. She wants to have absolute morality so that she can declare murder wrong (and thus advocate gun control), but at the same time she provides no coherent basis for what makes something right or wrong. Indeed, she has a worldview that actually destroys the possibility of their actually being any real right or wrong.

When someone has such an obviously incoherent worldview, it makes one wonder how that happens. What leads someone to embrace two obviously contradictory premises? The Bible actually provides an answer for this. The Scriptures teach that men and women are made in the image of God and the law of God is written on their heart (Rom 2:14-15). This explains why Moore insists that murder is wrong (which leads her to advocate gun control).

The Scriptures also teach that unbelievers suppress this truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18-23). Even though Moore knows there is a God, she refuses to admit such a thing and tries to live her life without him. Thus, her contradictory worldview is inevitable. She is trying to get away from God, but cannot escape him because the Law of God is written on her own heart.

Of course, it should be noted that Christians agree with Moore’s concern for human life. We agree that it is wrong to murder (regardless of what one thinks about the merits of gun control laws). The difference is that Christians actually have a coherent reason for why murder is wrong, namely because humans are made in the image of God (and thus are different from the cockroach), and because God has commanded us not to murder.

While non-Christians might act moral, and might advocate moral acts, only Christians have grounds for why an act is moral or immoral in the first place.

This past fall, RTS Charlotte launched its new degree program in biblical counseling. We are very excited about how God will use this new program to bless the church with men and woman who have been trained to apply God’s word more effectively in a one-on-one context. You read more about the program here.

Last week (Jan 19-22), Dr. Ed Welch from the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation (CCEF) came and taught a week-long course for RTS Charlotte entitled, “Ethos and Essentials of Biblical Counseling.” The course was so full (87 students) that we had to move it to our chapel.

During the lunch break on that Tuesday, I led a “President’s Forum” with Dr. Welch where we invited area pastors, counselors, students, and Christian leaders. I interviewed him on a number of important questions related to biblical counseling such as, “What is biblical counseling?”, “What can you do with a biblical counseling degree?”, “What about pastoral burnout?” and more. Here is the interview:

If you are interesting in the upcoming counseling classes at RTS Charlotte, here they are:

Spring 2015 –

Dynamics of Biblical Change (3 credits) – this is a required class with Dr. Rod Mays February 5 through May 7, 2015 on Thursdays from 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM

Spring 2015 –

Human Personality (3 credits) – this is a required class with Dr. Jeff Forrey March 16-20 from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM each day

Fall 2015 –

The Church and Homosexuality (2 credits) – even though this is primarily not a counseling class, it will fulfill a counseling elective requirement with Dr. Don Fortson August 25 through December 1 on Tuesdays from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM

Fall 2015 –

Counseling Practicum I (2 credits) – this is a required class with Rev. Gabe Sylvia August 19 through November 18 on Wednesdays from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM

Fall 2015 –

Introduction to Christian Counseling (3 credits) – this is a required class with Dr. Rod Mays August 20 through November 19, 2015 on Thursdays from 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM

Fall 2015 –

Marriage and Family Counseling (2 credits) – this is a required class with Dr. Rod Mays August 20 through November 19, 2015 on Thursdays from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM

Winter 2016 –

Theology and Secular Psychology (2 credits) – this is a required class with Dr. David Powlison January 18-22, 2016 on Monday from 1:00 PM – 4:30 PM, Tuesday through Thursday from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM, and Friday 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM

Since I am currently writing a book on Christianity in the second century, my research has been focused on some of our earliest patristic texts. These texts are a treasure trove of fascinating statements and declarations that provide tremendous insight on what early Christians really believed.

Most recently, I came across an amazing paragraph in one of our earliest Christian apologies. Aristides, a converted Athenian philosopher, wrote an apology to emperor Hadrian around 125 A.D. As such, it is one of the earliest patristic writings we possess. It is a lengthy treatise which compares the God of Christianity with the gods of the barbarians, the Egyptians, and the Greeks.

But, at one point, he summarizes what Christians believe in a manner that would rival even the Apostle’s Creed:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven (Apol. 2).

Aristides makes it clear that Christians affirm a number of key truths:

1. The divinity of Jesus: “God came down from heaven…” In the mind of Aristides, Jesus is not an angel, or a semi-divine being, but the very God of heaven itself.

2. The incarnation: “clothed himself with flesh.” In very vivid language, the author affirms that Jesus is God enfleshed; he took upon himself a real human body (contra the Docetists).

3. The virgin birth: “from a Hebrew virgin.” This doctrine flows naturally from the prior two. If Jesus is God, and he took on human flesh, then his conception would be distinctive from other human beings.

4. The authority of the Gospels: “taught in the gospel…and you also if you read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.” Notice for Aristides, there are books called a “gospel” which you can “read” to learn more about the person of Jesus. Moreover, these gospels contain a certain “power” which the reader can discern.

5. The authority of the apostles: “and he had twelve disciples.” Aristides recognizes that Jesus had an authority structure through the twelve that was necessary “so that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished.”

6. His death on the cross: “pierced by the Jews.” This is a clear reference to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate at the request of the Jewish leadership.

7. His resurrection: “after three days he rose.” Jesus did not stay in the grave but was raised from the dead.

8. His ascension: “ascended into heaven.” Jesus returned to his former heavenly home, in a position of power and glory.

This is a surprisingly thorough and wide-ranging summary of core Christian doctrines at a very early point in the life of the church. And it was this form of Christianity that was publicly presented to the Emperor. Once again, we can see that core Christian beliefs were not latecomers that were invented in the fourth century (or later), but appear to have been in place from the very beginning.

Tim’s review actually covers two books, first J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, eds., Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Zondervan, 2013), and then The Question of Canon. As he observes, the first is a book on the theology of Scripture, the second is a volume on the history of Scripture.

Here are the first and last paragraphs of Tim’s review:

Michael J. Kruger’s The Question of Canon is an unqualified delight. It is clear-headed, attempts to be scrupulously fair to those with whom he disagrees, and is concerned to make no claims beyond what his arguments directly entail. It is a work of apologetics, responding to what Kruger takes to be the five most commonly held tenets of the liberal consensus on the history of the formation of the NT canon. This consensus view holds that the NT books were not written as canon but only became canon over time. Kruger calls this the ‘extrinsic’ model of the canon, as opposed to the evangelical ‘intrinsic’ model which sees canon as something inherent to the texts and in early Christianity themselves.

…

Kruger’s overall conclusion is that canon is a seed evident in the church from the very beginning, which grew over time. He sees himself as having undermined the extrinsic model sufficiently to allow a fresh look to be given to the traditional intrinsic model.

…

Throughout, the author graciously finds as many positives as he can in the positions he critiques, while being clear about what he thinks is the solid ground for his own position. He thinks that his arguments hold water purely as history, quite apart from the views one holds on biblical inspiration. Any reader who has been taught the liberal consensus on the NT canon in a way which makes it appear to be the only viable option for a sensible historian will be hugely helped by the lucidity, charitableness and strength of the arguments implied in Kruger’s probing of its shaky assumptions.

Thanks to Tim for this very positive review. You can read the whole thing here.

In a prior article (here), I explored how the second-century work the Epistle to Diognetus clearly affirmed the full divinity of Jesus–a doctrine that some say did not come around until the fourth century. I continue this theme by exploring yet another doctrine that some suggest is a late invention: substitutionary atonement.

The average internet-level narrative goes something like this: the earliest Christians had no clear understanding for why Jesus died on the cross and what it accomplished. The idea of a substitutionary atonement is a late invention designed to retroactively explain the (otherwise embarrassing) death of Jesus. In fact, it was not until Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo (Why the God-Man?) in the middle ages that someone came up with the idea that Jesus died in place of sinners.

Of course, such a narrative can be readily refuted just examining the writings of the New Testament itself–particularly the letters of Paul. However, it is also worth noting that this view was held by some of the earliest Christian writers; in this case, by the author of the Epistle to Diognetus in the early second century. Here are some excerpts from the author that affirm key aspects of substitutionary atonement:

The Seriousness of Sin

The author writes:

And when we had demonstrated that we were powerless to enter the kingdom of God on our own, were were enabled by the power of God. For our unrighteous way of life came to fruition and it became perfectly clear that it could expect only punishment and death as its ultimate reward (9.1-2).

Here is a clear affirmation of human inability to save ourselves (akin to total depravity), and a full acknowledgement that sin deserves the ultimate penalty of death.

The Grace and love of God toward Sinners

The author writes:

But then, when the time arrived that God planned to reveal at last his goodness and power (Oh the supreme beneficence and love of God!), he did not hate us, destroy us, or hold a grudge against us (9.2).

God’s response to our sin, though deserving of death, is not to bring judgment but to show mercy.

Christ Bore Our Sins on Himself

Here is where we get to the crux of substitutionary atonement:

But [God] was patient, he bore with us, and out of pity for us took our sins upon himself. He gave up his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the lawless, the innocent one for the wicked, the righteous one for the unrighteous, the imperishable one for the perishable, the immortal one for the mortal. (9.2).

Here is a remarkable passage. Undoubtedly, the author views the work of Christ on the cross as an exchange, a swapping, of the righteous for the unrighteous, that we might be saved. And he says plainly that Christ “took our sins upon himself.” He stood in our place and bore God’s wrath for us.

Christ’s Righteousness Covers Us

Incredibly, the author even seems to affirm what Reformed folks refer to as the doctrine of imputation. This doctrine says that our justification is not only about having our sins taken away, but having Christ’s positive righteousness cover us. The author of the Epistle to Diognetus states:

For what else could hide our sins but the righteousness of that one? How could we who were lawless and impious be made upright except by the son of God alone? Oh the sweet exchange!…That the lawless deeds of many should be hidden by the one who was upright, and the righteousness of one should make upright the many who were lawless!

This is a significant passage because it doesn’t dwell on just our sins being taken away, but dwells substantively and primarily on the righteousness of Christ. And what does that righteousness do? It hides our sins. And it “makes upright” the lawless. And this happens in a “sweet exchange.” If we are looking for an ancient writer who describes the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, this comes awfully close.

In sum, the Epistle to Diognetus shows that the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement, and also the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, are not late inventions, but were present very early in the history of Christianity. Did some Christian groups hold other views of such matters? Sure. But, the continuity between the teachings of this epistle, and the writings of Paul himself (see especially Romans 5), make it evident that the substitutionary atonement/imputation view goes back very early indeed.

I am very excited about my wife Melissa’s new blog which launches today. There are a tremendous amount of resources available on this site, covering a wide variety of topics such as women’s ministry, motherhood, contentment, life as a pastor’s wife, and more.

The site also includes a number of her articles, podcasts, talks, and videos. Many of these have been published on other sites like the Gospel Coalition, Christianity.com, Reformation 21, and others.

Based on Psalm 107:27, she has creatively titled her new blog “Wit’s End: Having Nothing, Possessing Everything.” Here is her explanation of the meaning of the title:

Slowly I am learning that being at my wit’s end isn’t really the end of a thing, but the beginning. The end of thinking I can rescue myself is the beginning of crying out to the Lord for deliverance. The most secure place might just be at the end of my rope, clinging to Jesus, watching Him calm what I cannot control.

The blog is also an opportunity to learn more about Melissa and her ministry. Here is a snippet of her bio:

On Christmas Eve, I wrote part one of my review of Kurt Eichenwald’s piece (see here), and highlighted not only the substantive and inexcusable litany of historical mistakes, but also the overly pejorative and one-sided portrait of Bible-believing Christians. The review was shared by a number of other evangelical sites and thinkers—including the Gospel Coalition, Tim Challies, Denny Burk, Michael Brown, and others—and ever since I have been digging out from under the pile of comments. I appreciate that even Kurt Eichenwald joined the discussion in the comments section.

But the problems in the original Newsweek article were so extensive that I could not cover them in a single post. So, now I offer a second (and hopefully final) installment.

False Claims about Christians Killing Christians

In an effort to portray early Christianity as divided and chaotic (not to mention morally corrupt), Eichenwald repeatedly claims that Christians went around murdering each other in droves. He states:

Those who believed in the Trinity butchered Christians who didn’t. Groups who believed Jesus was two entities—God and man—killed those who thought Jesus was merely flesh and blood…Indeed, for hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, groups adopted radically conflicting writings about the details of his life and the meaning of his ministry, and murdered those who disagreed. For many centuries, Christianity was first a battle of books and then a battle of blood.

Notice that Eichenwald offers no historical evidence about the mass killing of Christians by Christians within the first few centuries (we are talking about the pre-Constantine time period). And there is a reason he doesn’t offer any. There is none.

Sure, one can point to instances in the medieval period, such as the Inquisition, where Christians killed other Christians. But, Eichenwald claims that Christianity began this way: “for hundreds of years after the death of Jesus.” This is another serious historical mistake that needs correcting.

When it comes to who-killed-who in the earliest centuries of the faith, it wasn’t Christians killing Christians. It was the Roman government killing Christians.

Interestingly, the “heretical” groups like the Gnostics–whom Eichenwald presents as the victims–tended to avoid this government persecution. When the Roman officials looked to pour out their wrath on Christians, it was almost always those of the “orthodox” variety (although there were exceptions). Eichenwald either doesn’t know this, or just failed to mention it.

Portraying early Christians as mass murderers makes for great rhetoric. But it makes for lousy history.

Overstating the Popularity of “Other” Gospels

Continuing his portrayal of early Christianity as a movement in “chaos,” Eichenwald claims that other gospels were just as well-known as the canonical ones:

The reason, in large part, was that there were no universally accepted manuscripts that set out what it meant to be a Christian, so most sects had their own gospels. There was the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Simon Peter, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Barnabas.

However, Eichenwald’s presentation here is enormously misleading. Apocryphal gospels were not nearly as popular, as wide-spread, or as well-established as the canonical ones. This can be demonstrated in a number of ways, but one simple way is just by observing how many manuscripts we possess of each gospel.

The physical remains of writings can give us an indication of their relative popularity. Such remains can tell us which books were used, read, and copied. When we examine the physical remains of the canonical gospels from the earliest centuries, we quickly discover that they were, far and away, the most popular.

For the gospel of John alone, we have approximately 18 Greek manuscripts from the second and third centuries. The most Greek manuscripts we have for any of the apocryphal gospels listed by Eichenwald is just two (Gospel of Mary). And the Gospel of Barnabas (a very late and notoriously unreliable “gospel”) has zero from this time period.

Blatant Exegetical Fallacies

Throughout the entire article, Eichenwald betrays his limited understanding of even the most basic interpretive and exegetical principles. He assumes that if the Bible really teaches a certain doctrine, then you will find chapter and verse stating that doctrine in a single passage. So, if the Bible really teaches the doctrine of the trinity, then we should find a verse using that word, or saying it succinctly.

He asks:

So where does the clear declaration of God and Jesus as part of a triumvirate appear in the Greek manuscripts? Nowhere.

It is clear that Eichenwald wants a single passage that either says the word “trinity” or describes God directly in a tri-fold manner. But, Eichenwald is committing two fundamental exegetical fallacies. First, he is confusing word and concept—one of the most common exegetical mistakes. If a text does not contain certain wording, he assumes it means it doesn’t contain certain concepts. But, this is demonstrably false. A verse can refer to a concept without mentioning certain key words.

Second, Eichenwald assumes that doctrines have to be demonstrable all in a single passage. But, this is a profound misunderstanding of the way doctrines are derived from Scripture. Some of our most fundamental doctrines are pieced together from a variety of texts, in a cumulative fashion. The doctrine of the trinity is one of these.

Even more than this, Eichenwald seems completely unaware of the texts that do speak of the persons of the Godhead in a three-fold fashion. Take the words of Jesus in the great commission that baptism should be done “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). Scholars have noted that the Greek construction uses the singular “name” followed by the threefold Father-Son-Spirit. Sounds pretty close to Eichenwald’s demand for a “triumvirate.”

Peter does something very similar in his first letter when he describes the doctrine of election as coming from “the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for the obedience to Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 1:2). All of these activities and attributes (election, foreknowledge, sanctification, one to whom we owe obedience) do not belong to merely human figures, but necessitate a divine one. And Peter describes this divine figure in a threefold manner.

And more passages like this can be added.

Eichenwald neither acknowledges nor addresses any of these texts (maybe he doesn’t know about them), but instead glibly declares the trinity to be an unbiblical concept. The audacity of such a conclusion is stunning. It requires us to believe that Christians have just tricked themselves about the trinity for thousands of years until finally, in the modern day, a Newsweek journalist uncovers the truth.

Confused about Contradictions

No critique of the Bible would be complete without the standard appeal to a laundry list of supposed contradictions. Eichenwald’s article is no exception. Instead of picking one contradiction and really developing the exegetical and historical case for his interpretation, he chooses instead to overwhelm the reader with a catalog of complaints ranging from the creation account to differences in the birth accounts to differences in the resurrection accounts.

Such a strategy has a twofold benefit for Eichenwald. First, the long list allows him to rattle off a variety of claims without actually having to do the hard work of demonstrating those claims. Thus, his accusations require him to offer no supporting evidence. Second, he knows no single individual could possibly respond to each of these claims in any level of detail (allowing him to potentially claim that Christians are unable or unwilling to respond).

Even so, there are numerous problems with Eichenwald’s approach. For one, he demonstrates hardly any awareness of the numerous evangelical responses to these problems (nor does he cite a single one). The reader begins to wonder whether he has even tried to find solutions, or whether he is just content to repeat back the arguments of critical scholars because they fit better into the purpose of his article.

In addition, Eichenwald repeatedly employs the fallacious argument from silence. He assumes that if one of the gospel authors doesn’t mention something then he must disagree with it. For instance, he observes that in Mark’s gospel Pilate doesn’t declare Jesus to be innocent, but in Luke’s Pilate does. Thus, voilà! A contradiction! But, this assumes that Mark’s account is exhaustive. Just because he doesn’t mention this part of the story does not necessarily mean he rejects it.

This sort of tendentious historical analysis isn’t designed to solve difficulties but is designed to find contradictions—whether they are there or not. Eichenwald should know better.

To cap it all off, Eichenwald even trots out the tiresome and oft-repeated claim that Jesus taught he was coming back in the lifetime of his disciples. Referring to Mark 13:30, he states:

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus says of the Apocalypse, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be done”—in other words, the people alive in his time would see the end of the world.

Eichenwald is happy to pluck this passage out of its context and interpret it for the reader: ”in other words, the people alive in his time would see the end of the world.” The problem is that his understanding of the text is directly in contradiction to the very passage he is citing from.

If Eichenwald had looked just one verse earlier, he would have realized that the “these things” the current generation would endure could not possibly refer to the second coming. Why? Because Jesus tells us the “these things” are what precedes the second coming! The prior verse states, “So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates” (Mark 13:29). This verse makes it plain that the “these things” is something distinguishable from the second coming–a likely reference to the trials of the church age.

Such surface-level exegesis gives the reader the impression that Eichenwald is more concerned to score points against the Bible than he is with really understanding the meaning of the passage.

For a more thorough treatment of supposed contradictions, see my blog series “Does the Bible Ever Get it Wrong” (first installment here).

Homosexuality and Obedience

Up to this point, Eichenwald’s article has been an epitomized by imbalanced and straw-man accusations against the Bible. Unfortunately, in the section on homosexuality Eichenwald reaches a new low. At no point is it more obvious that he is driven by his own entrenched ideological commitments and not by an honest attempt to understand what evangelicals believe.

Eichenwald begins with an analysis of 1 Tim 1:10 that is so blatantly fallacious and so critically flawed that it should be used as a textbook example of how exegesis is not to be done. He states:

But the translation there is odd, in part because the word homosexual didn’t even exist until more than 1,800 years after when 1 Timothy was supposed to have been written. So how did it get into the New Testament? Simple: The editors of these modern Bibles just made it up.

The reader is mystified by this statement. Of course, the word “homosexual” did not exist when Timothy wrote. It is an English word! But, that doesn’t mean there were not equivalent words and phrases in Greek that clearly referred to homosexuals. Indeed, we have extensive examples in ancient Greek works that refer to homosexuality and to homosexuals. Eichenwald’s point here is utter nonsense.

Eichenwald continues:

But suppose for a moment that 1 Timothy was written by Paul, and that “defile themselves” does refer to homosexuality. In that case, evangelical Christians and biblical literalists still have a lot of trouble on their hands. Contrary to what so many fundamentalists believe, outside of the emphasis on the Ten Commandments, sins aren’t ranked. The New Testament doesn’t proclaim homosexuality the most heinous of all sins. No, every sin is equal in its significance to God. In 1 Timothy, Paul, or whoever wrote it, condemns the disobedient, liars and drunks.

Eichenwald is correct that homosexuality is not ranked by the Bible as the most heinous of all sins. And he is correct that other sins are also serious problems. But it is unclear how this helps his case. Regardless of where one ranks homosexuality, the key point is that the Bible still clearly affirms it to be a sin. And just like other sins (whether greed, idolatry, or gossip), one needs to acknowledge it as a sin and repent of it.

And it is precisely here that the main debate over homosexuality lies. The homosexual community refuses to even admit it is a sin at all. On the contrary, they want Christians to embrace and affirm homosexuality as something good and right.

Thus, Eichenwald finds himself in a dilemma. He clearly wants to affirm the validity of many sins in the Bible (especially if he thinks they are committed by evangelicals). Is he willing to affirm that homosexuality is a sin? And if he is not, then he is the one who is “picking and choosing” what to follow in the Bible. Indeed, if he does not, then he is carving out a special exception for homosexuality. Isn’t that the same sort of thing that he condemned evangelicals for doing?

A Profound Misunderstanding of the Gospel

At the end of Eichenwald’s article, he deals what he believes is the fatal blow to evangelical Christianity:

Which raises one final problem for fundamentalists eager to condemn homosexuals or anyone else: If they accept the writings of Paul and believe all people are sinners, then salvation is found in belief in Christ and the Resurrection. For everyone. There are no exceptions in the Bible for sins that evangelicals really don’t like.

This is an outrageously misleading assessment of what Paul actually teaches. Indeed, after such a statement as this, one wonders whether Eichenwald has even read Paul (or Jesus).

Eichenwald makes it sound like evangelicals believe that homosexuals cannot be forgiven or that the gospel is not for them. That is simply not the case (and I notice that he cites no evangelicals that actually believe this). Evangelicals believe that even the most heinous sins can be forgiven.

But, here is the key. The gospel is for those who acknowledge their sins and turn away from them. Such an act is called “repentance.” And Jesus spoke of it often. Even in his very first sermon (Mark 1:15).

Of course, Eichenwald doesn’t mention this. It is much easier (and much more popular) to say that the gospel means you can live whatever lifestyle you want and still go to heaven. For Eichenwald, the main point of the gospel is that sins aren’t a big deal, no sin is worse than any other sin, and the main duty of a Christian is not to judge anyone else (which is why he ends his article with a monumental misunderstanding of Matt 7:1).

The truth is that Paul himself actually mentioned Eichenwald’s understanding of the gospel. And he condemned it. In Rom 6:1 he states, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?”

The gospel is not for perfect people. But, it is for repentant people—people who hate their sins and strive to stop committing them. Repentance doesn’t somehow merit salvation; but it is a requirement of salvation because it is the corollary of faith. A person cannot embrace Christ by faith if they are still holding tightly to their sin.

So, for homosexuals who repent of their homosexuality, and for any sinner who truly repents of their sins, then forgiveness in Christ can be theirs.

Conclusion

By way of conclusion, it is hard to know what to say about an article like Eichenwald’s. In many ways, it embodies all the misrepresentations, caricatures, and misunderstandings of the average non-Christian in the world today. It is short on the facts, it has little understanding of interpretive principles, it assumes that it knows more about theology than it really does, and it pours out scorn and contempt on the average believer.

Nevertheless, in a paradoxical fashion, I am thankful for it. I am thankful because articles like this provide evangelicals with an opportunity to explain what Christians really believe, and what historical credentials the Bible really has. Eichenwald’s article is evidence that most people in the world understand neither of these things. With all the evangelical responses to this article, hopefully that is changing.

In the end, there is a rich irony to the title of Eichenwald’s piece: “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin.” While he intended this to refer to evangelicals, I think it applies best to his own article.

It is not unusual for Newsweek, and other major media magazines, to publish critical opinions of Christianity and the Bible during major Christian holidays. I have lost count of how many March/April issues of such magazines have cast doubt on the resurrection, just in time for Easter.

However, the recent Newsweek cover article by Kurt Eichenwald, entitled “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,” published intentionally (no doubt) on December 23rd, goes so far beyond the standard polemics, and is so egregiously mistaken about the Bible at so many places, that the magazine should seriously consider a public apology to Christians everywhere.

Of course, this is not the first media article critiquing the Bible that has been short on the facts. However, what is stunning about this particular article is that Kurt Eichenwald begins by scolding evangelical Christians for being unaware of the facts about the Bible, and the proceeds to demonstrate a jaw-dropping ignorance of the facts about the Bible.

Being ignorant of biblical facts is one thing. But being ignorant of biblical facts after chiding one’s opponent for that very thing is a serious breach of journalistic integrity. Saying Eichenwald’s article is an instance of “the pot calling the kettle black” just doesn’t seem to do it justice.

There are a variety of categories where Newsweek needs to give Eichenwald a serious slap on the journalistic wrist. Given the length of the article, I will have to deal with it in two parts. Here are some serious problems with part one:

They wave their Bibles at passersby, screaming their condemnations of homosexuals. They fall on their knees, worshipping at the base of granite monuments to the Ten Commandments while demanding prayer in school. They appeal to God to save America from their political opponents, mostly Democrats. They gather in football stadiums by the thousands to pray for the country’s salvation.

So, Eichenwald’s well-balanced journalistic understanding of the Christian religion is limited to street preachers who scream at people, those who demand the 10 commandments be posted in schools, and the tiresome trope that all Christians are part of the Jerry Falwell moral majority?

Anyone who has studied evangelical Christianity for more than 10 minutes, using more than internet articles from the Huffington Post, would know that the average believer in America is none of these things.

Such stock accusations and caricatures are just low-hanging fruit that are unworthy of serious journalism. Eichenwald should know better.

Irresponsible Accusations

But, Eichenwald isn’t done. He is not nearly finished expressing his moral outrage against Christianity:

When the illiteracy of self-proclaimed Biblical literalists leads parents to banish children from their homes, when it sets neighbor against neighbor, when it engenders hate and condemnation, when it impedes science and undermines intellectual advancement, the topic has become too important for Americans to ignore, whether they are deeply devout or tepidly faithful, believers or atheists.

Notice that Eichenwald (still in his introduction) just tosses out these (very serious) accusations and generalizations with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. One wonders whether we are reading a news article or the editorial page. Could a journalist ever get away with such evidence-less accusations if it were made against Islam?

Take for instance the charge that Christians are all about “banishing children.” Seriously? If Eichenwald had actually investigated which part of the population is leading the way in adopting children without homes the answer would have been readily available. Evangelicals. Not Muslims. And certainly not liberal media elites.

But, even more than just being factually wrong, Eichenwald seems completely unaware that he is engaging in his own moralistic diatribe—the very thing he accuses Christians of doing. Remember, he complains that Christians are like the “Pharisees” always going around telling people they are wrong. Yet now Eichenwald is doing exactly the same thing. Why, then, is he not guilty of the very charge he levelled against Christians, namely “hate and condemnation”?

Apparently only Christian moralizing is “hate” whereas Eichenwald’s own moralizing is just fine.

Overplaying Transmission Problems

Eichenwald attempts to discredit the Bible by pointing out problems in its transmission. However, the real problem is not with the Bible but with Eichenwald’s misinformed accusations. For instance, he claims:

About 400 years passed between the writing of the first Christian manuscripts and their compilation into the New Testament.